User talk:Swiftestcat

This is my talk page. SwiftestCat (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Haramayn. 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) 06:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Primary Source Material to support Original Research

Hi, I've noticed one or two edits where you have used primary source material to add your own analyses onto certain articles. Please avoid this in the future. There is a valid way to use primary sources, and mainly secondary sources which have the analyses you are seeking must be used. At other times, uncontested small facts can be used from primary sources (e.g. beliefs over which there is no controversy/sectarian dispute are not uncontested - which is rare/likely never the case for religious personalities like these). Also you should know that there is a sectarian dispute within Sunnism as to what the beliefs and views of their early authorities like the four founders of the popular Sunni jurisprudential schools are. Please bear this in mind. If you are adding certain statements into articles, check to see what the majority of reliable sources say and where there is a lone source, then attribute a statement to an author to maintain neutrality if you feel this statement is controversial/will be contested/not in line with neutral sources. Where you can, use as neutral language as possible in articles you are editing to resolve disputes.

If you feel your edit is well sourced from reliable sources, but will still be contested, strike a conversation up on the talk page before-hand or after making the edit, where you can bring further sources and so someone can join the discussion there instead of reverting your edit. E.g. here is an example of where I have done this myself.

That is all, happy editing. ParthikS8 (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi – I totally understand the contention you raised about my edit on Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani, since I drew a conclusion on his 'aqidah based on primary sources. However, I didn't draw any conclusion on the 'aqidah of Abu Hanifah based on primary sources, I simply quoted his statements that pertain to 'aqidah – isn't that allowed? _Signed,Swiftestcat ^talk 12:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your edit did include primary source analysis before you quoted the sources, as you stated what you felt the quotations showed. Moreover, the entire section was based off of primary sources. Next, I presume you were selective of what you quoted of the primary source material, as there is a famous sectarian dispute as to what his views on theology were, and as far as I am aware you quoted what a certain group in the dispute would prefer to quote. For example there are statements where he states God is not in a place, which conflicts with popular understanding of Hanbalite theology today, e.g. in Fiqh al-Absat which you quoted from. There are similar statements of his controversial to the popular understanding of Hanbalism, esp. his use of certain language with regards to negation of corporealism and his views on divine speech - and these were not quoted from those primary sources. Finally, there is also the issue that some contest the reliability of the primary sources, so saying "Abu Hanifah said"/implying that is based off an assumption that the primary source is reliable in giving us Abu Hanifah's views in the first place - that is another example of primary source analysis. (On the article there is also a good section on discussion the reliability of Akbar/Absat.)

WP:PRIMARY states the following:

Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent sources. An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources.
Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[d] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.
Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:Biographies of living persons § Avoid misuse of primary sources, which is policy.
— WP:PRIMARY

Best to use reliable secondary sources, especially published/scholarly sources, to avoid all this - it is not easy to correctly use primary sources to just state facts, as outlined. Happy editing, ParthikS8 (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	thank you sir dubai Mohamed Taqi (talk) 03:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Satire Wretch (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC) Ey I just remembered this exists, how are you doing man? Long time no see, [also kinda miss talking to ya ngl :( ][reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ardiansyah Abdurrahman, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Mako001 (talk) 15:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]