User talk:Koreangauteng

Auto-Patrollers and Rollbackers suggested me to have a talk regarding your recent edits

Hey there, recently I have noticed several secondary sources by renowned western scholars in the field of Islamic Studies vanished from lede sections on several surahs. This was followed by new sections and/or sub-sections with the like of 'notable verses' and their respective interpretations. Additionally there are several problematic sources from those you provided leading to ex-muslim pages, conservative/right-winged news networks. But also more neutral news networks from Israel. These do not count as secondary sources. Oh and I would kindly ask you to check the secondary sources by known western scholars of Islamic Studies before deleting them all along as these are not easy to find/re-track. AshleighHanley82 (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reg. Surah al-Fatiha and the addressed people on your recent edit at Antisemitism

I think you mixed up the sources. The ones you provided by Sahih Muslim & Bukhari do not deal with Surah Fatiha, at least not in these instances. They both read as follows: "Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported Prophet ﷺ as saying: You would tread the same path as was trodden by those before you inch by inch and step by step so much so that if they had entered into the hole of the lizard, you would follow them in this also. We said: Allah's Messenger, do you mean Jews and Christians (by your words)" those before you"? He said: Who else (than those two religious groups)?" //// & "The Prophet said, "You will follow the wrong ways, of your predecessors so completely and literally that if they should go into the hole of a mastigure, you too will go there." We said, "O Allah's Apostle! Do you mean the Jews and the Christians?" He replied, "Whom else?".

The first example talks about a lizards hole and the second is about a mastigures hole, context wise a surah is not adressed here. Your previous sources were different on this subject, weren't they? AshleighHanley82 (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I won't use these two citations for Surah Fatiha. Koreangauteng (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I already briefly mentioned it but you keep fracturing summary sections "Content and theme matter" into almost a dozen tiny sub-sections named "notable verses", completely disjointed from one another, thus leading to confusion. The entire article becomes chaotic as there is no structure. The articles primary focus should be a brief summary on what is dealt here with. AshleighHanley82 (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sura layout changes

Hello Koreangauteng,

I strongly disagree with your recent changes on various surahs. How set are you on this? I don't really care about "ayat" vs. "verse" or the like, but changing a singular essay description to a set of disconnected "notable verses" is not a good change. In addition, please read Template:Cite Quran - translator is a recommended parameter to show which translation of the Quran is being used and will automatically show whose version it is. If you are really set, please start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam and suggest that Suras be discussed following your preferred style. If there's a consensus behind it, fine, but I'm very skeptical this is a good idea as it stands. SnowFire (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some issues with current Wiki Quran articles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Some_issues_with_the_current_Wikipedia_Quran_articles Koreangauteng (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP user

First, let me clear that I am not trying to make any accusations against anyone, I am just trying to ask you a general Wikipedia question. Is it odd that an IP user with 6 edits before today has so much knowledge about Wikipedia policies? GrammarDamner (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't odd if you know what a dynamic IP is. I was editing Wikipedia long before you registered your account. In future, I suggest that if you have concerns about a contributor, you first raise such concerns directly with them. 86.134.74.102 (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Advice from an IP user.

Koreangauteng, In case you haven't got the message, I'd strongly advise you not to accuse a named contributor of having a 'COI' in the manner that you did: in a discussion where the contributor wasn't involved, wasn't notified, and accordingly was in no position to respond. I've seen people get blocked before for doing exactly that. If you have genuine concerns about COI (after reading the relevant policy, which you seem not to understand fully), discuss it with the contributor concerned, and then raise it at WP:COIN if you can't reach a resolution. 86.134.74.102 (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Houri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alexa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied text from Satanic Verses to An-Najm (your addition has since been removed). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Hadiths that support..."

You've been reverted and I think quite properly. We shouldn't be using religious texts that way, and certainly not quotes. It's not our job as editors to find Hadiths that support or oppose something, it's our job to find secondary sources that meet WP:RS that discuss the subject. Doug Weller talk 17:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion on this matter at : [1] Koreangauteng (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ibn Kathir's tafsir from Quran4U overuse

There does not seem to be any purpose to link this tafsir to every Quranic chapter name and sometimes verses when there is no mention or relavance to it. A simple translation should be linked instead, though even then there is no need to link it to the name itself.

Secondly Quran4U which hosts the tafsir has a poor format and gives the impression of being unreliable. Altafsir.com would be better.119.155.36.215 (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Your recent editing history at Camel urine‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 10:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Camel_urine#Camel_urine_in_2020 Koreangauteng (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Camel urine. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 04:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it was inappropriate at Camel urine, it was inappropriate at Prophetic medicine. Do not restore the material there. As multiple users have explained, you are combining statements from sources to reach conclusions that no specific source makes. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Islamic attitudes towards science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Relativity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Madrassas in Pakistan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saudi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 24

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Islamic marriage contract (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bukhari

Women in Islam (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Islam and slavery

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concubinage in Islam

Hi, Koreangauteng. I see you have been active on Talk:Concubinage in Islam. Can you take a look at the concerns raised there? [2] [3] Regards,Mcphurphy (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Concubinage_in_Islam. Keep saying "taqyia" thing to Muslim editors and you will find yourself reported and blocked SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to say the same thing. Don't attack people on religious grounds. I was, personally, deeply insulted by your comment.VR _talk 23:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto, and you should strike out your comment and apologize instead of pretending you never made it. This also isn't the first time you made this Islamophobic accusation or a false COI one.39.37.151.149 (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. I have had enough with your absurd original research/poor sourced additions to articles about Islam. You have added multiple false content in articles about Islam like the one in the Halal article or the one in Camel urine. Please stop. Thank you. BTW, I still havent seem you apologizing for the Taqyia comment against Muslim editors. Saying that Muslim editors are doing "Taqyia" clearly shows that you dont even know what Taqyia is.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC) SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Have you ever edited as Speedrailsm?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly a sockpuppet of Speedrailsm. All of your contributions will be reverted when I email a checkuser as per the block policy.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Halal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bismillah (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Nick-D (talk) 08:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Speedrailsm Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that as you have been engaging in Checkuser-confirmed evasion of indefinite duration blocks, you are banned from Wikipedia per WP:THREESTRIKES. Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]