Jump to content

User talk:TheEagle107/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

January 2023

[edit]

Copyright problem icon Your edit to :Imam Maturidi International Scientific Research Center has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. This is your final warning. Further violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Support

[edit]

Hello, The Eagle107 and I hope you're doing well. I just recently got a notability on Al-Khattabi page which you helped me on. I used only secondary sources that were quoting medieval sources and I'm confused to why they issued me this? If you could help me I would really appreciate you, many thanks. Ayaltimo (talk) 16:24, 09 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Ayaltimo: The topic is notable, but the sources you have cited in the article are not good enough. I've added several additional sources to the article that provide significant coverage, and I think now the article is clearly meets the general notability guidelines. Good luck and all the best!--TheEagle107 (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ayaltimo: By the way, when you have some free time, please see WP:ILL. Thank you.--TheEagle107 (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I knew I could count on your support! I will definitely look into it and try to learn. Ayaltimo (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

:Category:Books about anthropomorphism has been nominated for deletion

[edit]
:Category:Books about anthropomorphism has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of content Feb 2023

[edit]

Hello, and Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one or more of your edits on the pages Al-Tabari, Al-Tirmidhi, Al-Darimi, Abd al-Rahman al-Awza'i, Dawud al-Zahiri, Ibn Majah and Abu Dawud al-Sijistani have been reverted. While these edits may have been in good faith, they were difficult to distinguish from Disprutive Editing since you have removed long-standing stable content backed up by Reliable sources. To help other editors understand the reason for the changes, you can use an edit summary for your contributions. Ahl al-Hadith is not a creedal school, since it is an early scholarly movement and "traditionalism" is an English academic term that is used to refer to Atharism, in the context of theology. The relevent sources on these had already been notified to you, as you're aware. [1] You can also take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. shadowwarrior9 (talk) 5:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


@Shadowwarrior8: "Unexplained removal of content"?! Seriously?! I have written in the edit summary, "We have to go with what the source says. Traditionalist, referring to one of the Ahl al-Hadith who adheres to the traditional authority in dogma; while Athari is referring to one of the followers of Ahmad ibn Hanbal in 'aqidah..."

Secondly, you have been warned before, not to add original research. Original research is material saved in article space for which no reliable published source exists, or material that is combined from reliable published sources to advance a position not advanced by the sources themselves. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what the sources express or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, STICK TO THE SOURCES.

Can you show me one source that says "Athari"? If you have a source that clearly says "Athari", then you can write that, indicating your source. But the reality is that all the cited sources says "Traditionalist" not "Athari". There is even a source that states clearly that: "the traditionalists (ahl al-ḥadῑth)". [ https://www.jstor.org/stable/40377944 ]

You are confusing "Traditionalists" with "Athari". Athari is a school that derives its name from the Arabic word Athar, meaning "Narrations". The Atharis are often subsumed under the Hanbalite school of law (madhhab); as the Hanbali jurist al-Saffarini said: ‘Ahl al-sunnah wa’l-jama‘ah are three groups: ATHARIS, WHOSE LEADER IS AHMAD B. HANBAL, may Allah be pleased with him; Ash‘aris, whose leader is Abu’l-Hasan al-Ash‘ari, may Allah have mercy on him; and Maturidis, whose leader is Abu Mansur al-Maturidi.’[1]

Here are some sources that shows explicitly the meaning of "Traditionalist":

  • Abū Yaʿqūb al-Buwayṭī, the first successor of Muḥammad b. Idrīs al-Shāfiʿī, made an important but hitherto unappreciated contribution to the formatioṇ of the Shāfiʿī school of law and the convergence of the rival legai approaches of the traditionalists (ahl al-ḥadῑth) and the rationalists (ahl al-raʿy) over the course of the 3d/9th Century.[2]
  • The term traditionalists (ahl al-hadith) is used to refer to scholars who transmit or investigate traditions to establish the soundness of their authenticity.[3]
  • ... and the traditionalist position (usually referred to by ahl al-hadith) that revelation was knowable only by faith, and that human action was primarily determined by God, on the other.[4]
  • By traditionalist, I am referring to one of the ahl al-hadith who adheres to the traditional authority in dogma, as against the claim of rationalists (ahl al-kalām); by contrast, the term “traditionist” refers to a muhaddith, one who transmits hadith.[5]
  • This led to a protracted controversy over the question of the “creation” of the Qur'an, which the Mutazilite made it into a litmus test to distinguish the traditionalists (Ahl al-hadith) from the rationalists (Ahl al-Ra'y).[6]
  • or Traditionalists (ahl al-hadith),...[7]
  • To a traditionalist, a legitimate theologian is one who belongs to Ahl al-Hadith, the partisans of tradition, who set themselves against Ahl al-Kalām...[8]
  • While debate still raged between the "rationalists" or ashab al-ray ("masters of free opinion"), and "traditionalists" or ahl al-hadith ("the people of hadith")[9]

Please stop adding original research to articles, or provide other sources. Thank you.--TheEagle107 (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@TheEagle107: The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. Who told that your definition of what an "Athari" is or isnt, holds any weight? Exceptional claims requires exceptional sources More importantly, Ahl al-Hadith are not a creedal school, they are a scholarly movement, (as is known by plenty of sources) of which creed is only a part of it. Without any attempts to discuss, you just made these edits undermining the Longstanding, stable version.
Yes, traditionalist also refers to "Ahl al-Hadith", Who disputed this? Atharism is the theology of traditionalists or it is the Traditionalist school of Islamic theology. Plenty of academic sources refer to Athari as traditionalism.

This creed is based on the views of Athari or traditionalist theological school that defines the attributes and nature of God based on the literal interpretation of the scripture.[10]

The Hanbalite madhhab, in contrast, largely maintained the traditionalist or Athari position[11]

transnational scripturalist and rigorist piety trends informed by traditionalist (Athari) theology[12]

athar being a synonym for hadith, athari as an adjective denotating a traditionalist, used in names especially as indicating a theological affiliation ..[13]

And more importantly, Ahl al-Hadith themselves are Athari. No reliable source claims that Athari theology is a seperate entity from the Ahl al-hadith current.

The second group – the Ahl al-Hadith or Athari stream – were against any form of reasoning, applying a strictly literal reading[14]

(trans).Adherents of the current of Islamic traditionalist theology(Athari) reject the metaphorical or esoteric interpretation of the Qur'an (taʾwīl), the first representative group for this current being Ahl al-Hadith ("people of the hadith")[15]

Also why are you making Original Research through your own sources?
  • The Roy Jackson book clearly states:

    The followers of Hanbal were referred to as Hanbalites, or Traditionalists (ahl al-hadith), of whom the greatest proponent was Ibn Taymiyya (1263–1328)..[16]

How convenient of you to ignore this part!
  • As for Al-Saffarini's definition, how is his definition binding for Wikipedia purposes? That's his opinion. Even from a theological perspective, this definition isnt binding. Anyone take the definition of Ibn Taymiyya or Ibn Qudamah or any theologian they like who contradicts this definition and claim this is the real Atharism/Traditionalism.
  • As for the Geroge makdisi work, you erased the word "to", trying to present a picture that directly contradict the source.

To a traditionalist, a legitimate theologian is one who belongs to Ahl al-Hadith, the partisans of tradition, who set themselves against Ahl al-Kalām...[17]

This only proves the fact that traditionalists also referred themselves as Ahl al-Hadith and their theology was a part of the Ahl al-hadith ethos.
So its pretty ironic for you to throw allegations of Original Research against other editors, when you remove Long-standing content based on your own mis-interpretation of sources or POVs and violating the long-standing Consensus in Wikipedia.

Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


@Shadowwarrior8: Once again, none of your sources explicitly says "Athari" but rather all of your sources say "Traditionalist". The problem here is that the scholars who were born before the birth of Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241/855), the Imam of the Athari school, cannot be considered Atharis, as you did in the article of Al-Shafi'i (d. 204/820), who was the teacher of Ahmad ibn Hanbal!!! My suggestion to solve this problem: Either you bring sources that explicitly and directly says "Athari" or simply write "Traditionalist" as the cited sources say.--TheEagle107 (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shadowwarrior8: I think you need to see THIS because you're claiming that you have consensus!--TheEagle107 (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheEagle107: Its telling that you first requested "provide other sources"[2], and when the reliable, academic references are revealed, you suddenly shift the goal posts; which is an indication of the genuinity involved in such requests.
Firstly, the Reliable, academic sources have all clearly demonstrated for everyone that Traditionalism is a terminology widely used to denote Athari theology far more than the term Athari itself. It is a Common English academic term and all the cited references in those articles were in the context of Islamic theology. You simply want to push down your own personal definitions and want other editors to accept it. What is your source that nobody held the traditionalist/Athari theology before Ahmad ibn Hanbal?? Yeah, Nothing.
Even from your own POV, you had no reason to delete these content and categories because all the scholars save for Al-Awzai were either contemporaries or successors of Ahmad. Thus, even Assuming Good faith, your edits cant be seen as nothing but part of an apparent Bias against Athari tradition, which degrades the purpose of encyclopaedia.
And lastly, regarding your 'suggestion" to re-write them as "Traditionalist theology" in the creed section, I dont understand its usefulness. Furthermore, what is the purpose of re-writing the Athari theologians who lived since the late 8th century to the contemporary times to "Traditionalist theology" in the first place?? Athari is the shorter term of the traditionalist theology and more concise to readers. If you wish, feel free to add "traditionalist" or "Ahl al-Hadith" in a seperate row titled "movement", which would be available. Either way, the term "Athari" should absolutely stay; since this is well known in the academia as "traditionalist theology". Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


@Shadowwarrior8: I don't want to repeat what I have already said and mentioned above, but here is another source that confirms what al-Saffarini said in his Lawami' al-Anwar al-Bahiyyah wa Sawati' al-Asrar al-Athariyyah.

Al-Bāqillānī does not see any significant differences between the theology of the followers of al-Ash‘arī and that of Aḥmad Ibn Hanbal (eponymous founder of Atharism).[18]

I think our discussion is done here. Now, if you don't mind, I would appreciate a third opinion on the matter. Any suggestions?--TheEagle107 (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@TheEagle107: All of your alterations except al-Awzai, were either contemporaries or successors of Ahmed. You even removed content from Hanbali scholars like Abu Dawud al-Sijistani, contrary to your own assertions. I'm sorry, but this type of behaviour is totally unacceptable.
This source doesnt prove what you're suggesting either, since even the Roy Jackson source quoted above states that Ahl al-Hadith are followers of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal; yet plenty of scholars before Ibn Hanbal are described as "Ahl al-Hadith" in numerous academic sources.
Also note that the same reference defines Atharism in its Glossary:

Atharism an Islamic scholarly movement, originating in the late eighth century CE, that largely rejects rationalistic theology in favour of strict textualism in interpreting the Quran and hadith. The name derives from “tradition” in its technical sense as a translation of the Arabic word hadith[19]

So not only is Atharism defined on the basis of terms such as "hadith" and "tradition", it also explains that it originated in the late 8th century, when ibn Hanbal was in his teens at best and not a scholar. Furthermore, all your content removal involved late 8th century traditionalist/Athari theologians. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
@Shadowwarrior8: "Traditionalists" may refer to: Ahl al-Hadith or Atharism. Therefore, I suggest adding the term "Traditionalist" in the template, as the sources say, and linked it to the disambiguation page of "Traditionalism", as it gives all possible meanings.--TheEagle107 (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheEagle107: This only makes any sense in the context of pre-late 8th century scholars at best and Traditionalist creed/theology isn't anything ambiguous to be linked to some disambiguation page. So no. But if you want to add "Traditionalist" in a row titled "movement", which is more sensible and actually improves the Encyclopedia, feel free to do it, as I've already suggested.
Additionally, going by your proposed logic, the creed of all Traditionalist/Athari theologians from past to present has to be linked to some disambiguation page that confuses the readers. Hence "Athari" should definitely stay; as it is a Common editing nomenclature which is well-backed up by Reliable, academic references. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
@Shadowwarrior8: Yes, I think you have got my point. But I'd rather leave it up to you or someone else who would be interested in the matter, to avoid any misunderstanding or disagreement. Thanks for the conversation, anyway! Peace.--TheEagle107 (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Revisiting the Sensitive Question of Islamic Orthodoxy".
  2. ^ "The First Shāfiʿī: The Traditionalist Legal Thought of Abū Yaʿqūb al-buwayṭī (d. 231/846)". JSTOR. Brill Publishers.
  3. ^ Allen James Fromherz; Nadav Samin, eds. (2021). Knowledge, Authority and Change in Islamic Societies. Brill Publishers. p. 181. ISBN 9789004443341.
  4. ^ Jens Hanssen; Max Weiss, eds. (2018). Arabic Thought Against the Authoritarian Age: Towards an Intellectual History of the Present. Cambridge University Press. p. 303. ISBN 9781107193383.
  5. ^ Saud al-Sarhan, ed. (1964). Political Quietism in Islam: Sunni and Shi’i Practice and Thought. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 91. ISBN 9781838607654.
  6. ^ Louay M. Safi (2021). Islam and the Trajectory of Globalization: Rational Idealism and the Structure of World History. Routledge. p. 136. ISBN 9781000483543.
  7. ^ Roy Jackson (2014). What is Islamic Philosophy?. Routledge. p. 29. ISBN 9781317814047.
  8. ^ George Makdisi (2022). Religion, Law and Learning in Classical Islam. Routledge. p. 49. ISBN 9781000585063.
  9. ^ Daphna Ephrat (2000). A Learned Society in a Period of Transition. SUNY Press. p. 87. ISBN 9780791446454.
  10. ^ Pall, Zoltan (2018). "Introduction". Salafism in Lebanon: Local and Transnational Movements. One Liberty Plaza, New York, NY 10016, USA: Cambridge University Press. p. 16. ISBN 978-1-108-42688-6.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  11. ^ R. Halverson, Jeffry (2010). "2: The Demise of 'Ilm al-Kalam". Theology and Creed in Sunni Islam: The Muslim Brotherhood, Ash‘arism, and Political Sunnism. 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-230-10279-8.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  12. ^ Lovotti, Tafuro Ambrosetti, A. Hartwell, Chmielewska, Chiara, Eleonora, Christopher, Aleksandra (2020). Russia in the Middle East and North Africa: Continuity and Change. 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017: Routledge. p. 148. ISBN 978-0-367-25128-4.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  13. ^ Fisher, Prucha, Tupek, Ali, Nico, Pavel (February 2022). "The Salafi-Jihadi Nexus: An evidence based approach of the Caliphate Library" (PDF). EICTP.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  14. ^ Azoulay, Rivka (2020). Kuwait and Al-Sabah: Tribal Politics and Power in an Oil State. 50 Bedford Square, London, UK: I.B. Tauris. p. 224. ISBN 978-1-8386-0505-6.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  15. ^ Vlad Ghiță, Adrian (2019). "Revivalismul islamic. Tendinţe înnoitoare" [Islamic Revivalism: Renewing trends]. Theology and Life. 40 (9–12): 143 – via The Central and Eastern European Online Library.
  16. ^ Roy Jackson (2014). What is Islamic Philosophy?. Routledge. p. 29. ISBN 9781317814047.
  17. ^ George Makdisi (2022). Religion, Law and Learning in Classical Islam. Routledge. p. 49. ISBN 9781000585063.
  18. ^ Mohammed Gamal Abdelnour (2021). A Comparative History of Catholic and Ash‘arī Theologies of Truth and Salvation. Brill Publishers. p. 55. ISBN 9789004461765.
  19. ^ Mohammed Gamal Abdelnour (2021). "Glosssary of Key Terms". A Comparative History of Catholic and Ash‘arī Theologies of Truth and Salvation. Brill Publishers. p. 166. ISBN 978-90-04-46170-3.

February 2023

[edit]

Information icon Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to :Badr al-Din al-Simawi. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. Uness232 (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

[edit]
100px The Original Barnstar
You've made an impressive article at Sharh al-'Aqa'id al-Nasafiyya. I was very interested as a reader, and it is very well-structured. Please continue to make these type of articles or expand on others if you have time. It's an honour having you here contributing on Wikipedia. Ayaltimo (talk) 09:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
@Ayaltimo: Thank you so much for the barnstar, and the kind motivational words. It's GREATLY appreciated! 🙏 Best regards.--TheEagle107 (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Deobandis

[edit]

Please help me organize the names in alphabetical order. Thank you.–MinisterOfReligion (Talk) 09:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Owais Al Qarni:  Done.--TheEagle107 (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sharh al-'Aqa'id al-Nasafiyya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macedonia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

 Ahmad Zayni Dahlan 

[edit]

Hello,

Just wanted to make you know that I translated the page in French and tried to make it correspond in all points with the English article, including your edits. Cordially, AgisdeSparte (talk) 08:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   — Diannaa (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked your account, because in spite of repeated warnings including a final warning in January, you continued to add copyright material to Wikipedia in violation of our copyright policy. You cannot resume editing until you provide a statement describing how copyright applies to Wikipedia, show that you understand our copyright policy, and make a commitment to follow it in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Message

[edit]

Please come back and make a statement that you've understood the copyright guidelines and will take a better precaution in the future. Someone valuable and experienced as you in Wikipedia shouldn't get caught up in this predicament. If you do plan to use a specific source next time to make a contribution, please use this website. [3] It helps you paraphrase everything and will save you a lot of trouble! I wish you all well, regards. Ayaltimo (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC

@Ayaltimo: Thank you very much for your support and thoughtfulness. I respect Wikipedia's rules and I support its standards. I also value fairness and accuracy. I usually use Earwig's Copyvio Detector before posting my edits or creating my articles to make sure that I don't violate copyright policies, and I have used this tool before publishing my last edit, which caused me to be permanently banned from editing due to copyright policy. But the tool did not show any copyright violations! (see HERE) Anyway, I am satisfied with what I have achieved here, and I think this ban came at the right time, because I need to take a vacation to recharge myself! :) Thanks again and wishing you all the best. Peace. 🤍🕊️--TheEagle107 (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Fadha'il al-'Amal.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Fadha'il al-'Amal.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Fadilat Amal.jpeg

[edit]
⚠
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Fadilat Amal.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Vertus du Tabligh.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Vertus du Tabligh.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

[edit]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TheEagle107 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, I have spent the last couple of months reading Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially those on copyrights. Now I understand that I must avoid close paraphrasing completely, and rewrite/rephrase the whole original content in my own words without changing its contextual meaning. I hope you will give me another chance to prove myself worthy of your trust. Thanks, anyway. TheEagle107 (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not do as Diannaa requested above: "You cannot resume editing until you provide a statement describing how copyright applies to Wikipedia, show that you understand our copyright policy, and make a commitment to follow it in the future." 331dot (talk) 08:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Unblock request

[edit]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

TheEagle107 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello again! Wikipedia has several policies, guidelines, and explanatory essays about copyright and attribution in articles: Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Non-free content, Wikipedia:Copyright violations, Wikipedia:Public domain, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights, Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, and Wikipedia:Plagiarism. In my humble opinion, these policies can be summarized as follows: Copyright refers to the legal right given to the deserving creator and owner of the creative work, so they may claim the full benefit thereof and it shall not be used unfairly by anyone else without the copyright holder's permission. The majority of the text and a significant number of images on Wikipedia are licensed under two open-source licenses: the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). Both of these licenses allow people to use and change text that they find on Wikipedia, but only as long as attribution is done. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, which means we should be trying to use the best free content available. Because using copyrighted material can put the site in legal risk, and prevents Wikipedia from being free to distribute, going against one of the five pillars. There is an exception to the rules of copyright, which is called fair use, which allows copyrighted works to be used without permission in a limited way for educational or critical purposes, review, scholarship and small quotations with its source attributed. Generally, fair use exceptions are ill-defined, and vary widely from country to country, which is determined by case by case analysis based on factors such as the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion used. In order to avoid violating copyright policies, we must obtain permission from the copyright holder, use public domain content, use content under a free license, attribute sources properly and follow the platform guidelines. In short, editors are required to rewrite and summarize the content in their own words and structure without altering the meaning of the original text. Finally, I would like to say to the reviewing admin that the block is no longer necessary, because I understand what l have been blocked for, and will no longer infringe/violate copyright policies. Thank you.--TheEagle107 (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Youy now seem to have a better understanding of copyright and how it applies to Wikipedia. I am unblocking. Welcome back. — Diannaa (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheEagle107/Archive_4&oldid=1175374421"