User talk:مصطفى النيل

October 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm McGeddon. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Boiling frog, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 08:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a Quran quotation that you personally feel to be relevant is original research: you should quote a secondary source that has already drawn the comparison between the quotation and the frog story. --McGeddon (talk) 09:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khan[edit]

hi there

Sadiq Aman Khan[3] (born 8 October 1970) is a Sunni Muslim British Labour Party politician

this type of intro is not usual on en wikipedia - religious affiliation is not usually mentioned in the header - unless it is a primary notability for the subject and in this case it isn't regards - please don't replace it - thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the daily beast[edit]

The Daily Beast is world wide known high quality reliable source

Is not a world wide known high quality reliable source - it is dramatic and tabloid style, often in violation of living peoples articles , see WP:BLP- please do not add the link again without wp:consensus on the talk page - Govindaharihari (talk) 06:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning[edit]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your 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. cӨde1+6^TP 02:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. cӨde1+6^TP 02:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edits to Sunni Islam[edit]

The information you removed was supported by an authoritative specialist source which meets our reliable sourcing standards. The most that could be done with the non-specialist source you cite is add that information without removing the existing information -- but do not do that for at least 24 hours or you'll end up blocked for edit warring. Even then, the source you cite is, again, a non-specialist source.

I'm watching the article now, and I know I'm not going to be the only admin doing so. Discuss matters, and be aware that consensus may not go your way. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :-). In fact, Aaron W. Hughes is a Professor of Jewish Studies, not Islamic studies. He only has some interests and writings about Islam but he is NOT a specialist on Islam.^[1] So, I hope from you to remove his claims about Islam from Wikipedia to keep Wikipedia trustworthy. I also hope from you to remove the clearly false info which says (The sequence of events of the 20th century has led to resentment in some quarters of the Sunni community due to the loss of pre-eminence in several previously Sunni-dominated regions such as the Levant, Mesopotamia, the Balkans and the Caucasus) because it's proven that these claims are completely false as an official Congressional report says. ^[2] ^[3] مصطفى النيل (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me anything about this edit? Ian.thomson (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it is simply not me and I didn't even knew about it except from you now. مصطفى النيل (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016[edit]

Please stop. Wikipedia is not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article, such as you did to Sunni Islam, will be regarded as vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, if you revert again without getting consensus on the talk page, you will be blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Get consensus on the talk page" applies to any kind of edit, not just removing information. If you try to add information and it is removed, do not try to bring it back without getting consensus on the talk page. Once again, if you revert without getting consensus, I will block you for edit warring.

Also, see WP:No original research. Your personal opinion regarding Hughes's credentials is not relevant, you need a source that claims that that is relevant. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source regarding Hughes's is there!^[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by مصطفى_النيل (talk • contribs)

That is a source saying what his credentials are but that source does not say that the issue is relevant with regards to what he has written on Sunni Islam. It is your personal opinion that his credentials are relevant. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source says that he is a Professor of Jewish Studies. So, he is not a Professor of Islamic Studies. مصطفى النيل (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that page says that he's a professor of Jewish studies. It does not say that he is disqualified from writing about other Abrahamic religions, nor does it say that if he ever writes about Islam and gets published by a reputable university press that we should ignore what he writes. Indeed, the page rather affirms that numerous universities with a reputation for good scholarship have trusted him to write about Islam and religions in general. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But he isn't a specialist of Islam as you can see. Anyway, in my latest edit I didn't remove his false claims or anything. I just added info and reliable sources and I hope everyone cooperate and avoid edit wars against my latest edit. مصطفى النيل (talk) 04:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at Sunni Islam. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not fair to block me at all and I should be unblocked[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).

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

Request reason:

The administrator who blocked me is involved in a war against my latest edit on Sunni Islam. Also, my latest edit is a useful contribution supported by reliable sources. So, it is not fair to block me at all and I should be unblocked. Those who made edit war against my latest edit are the ones who should be blocked. For all of that I request to unblock me now. Thanks. مصطفى النيل (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Continuing to make accusations against others, as you did below, will not get you unblocked - in fact, it is likely to get your talk page access revoked if it continues, so I would suggest you stop the accusations now. As for the article content, I have no idea, but whether you are right or wrong about it you must not engage in edit warring. Claiming that because you were only reverted by two people (below) it is not edit warring is simply false. (You might be thinking of WP:3RR, but that is not what you are blocked for - at WP:EW it says "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.) If any changes you make are contested, you need to start a civil discussion and seek a consensus, and not just engage in a revert battle. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2016 (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.

My involvement was administrative. The one revert I made was made instead of a block I could have given after you received plenty of fair warning you received from multiple editors. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, your unfair and unprofessional warning was about previous different edit where I deleted some untrusted sourced info. But, in my latest edit I just added useful contributions supported by reliable sources without deleting any info. So, your war against my latest edit doesn't make sense at all. مصطفى النيل (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from Mr. Thomson and myself, your edits were also reverted by User:Code16, User:Cameron11598 and User:IronGargoyle. That you're asking for all of us to be blocked for reverting your edits because we were edit warring, and not you, is enough for any impartial observer to agree with the temporary block to preserve the Sunni Islam article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To MezzoMezzo: NOT true. My latest edit (+1,189) was reverted only by you and Thomson! Thus, I am blocked unfairly! What you both have done is NOT preserving the Sunni Islam article. What you both have done is vandalism because you protected false claims against Sunni Islam and excluded trusted sourced contributions talking about Sunni Islam positively! These deeds may lead many people to believe that you are a group who have a hidden agenda against Sunni Islam and one person of this group claims he is a Sunni to deceive others. Anyway, what you both have done is a clear vandalism and I strongly recommend for Wikipedia to permanently block both of you and all of your group from editing any article about Islam. مصطفى النيل (talk) 13:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To Zebedee: This is NOT fare but my block will expire after about few hours anyway. By the way, I didn't make any accusation against anyone. I just said: "These deeds (may lead many people) to believe that you are.. etc". This is NOT an accusation. مصطفى النيل (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are implying bad-faith with regards to everyone (there's many editors who reverted your edits) including the very admin who saved you from a block initially. When I reported you Ian (Admin) made the call not to block you. You should have learned from his advice, which he gave generously, but instead you persisted in making the same mistakes. That is no one's fault but your own so please stop attacking everyone else. cӨde1+6^TP 18:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Code16 is right here. And while you might not have directly accused others, you certainly implied an accusation - and that is not in keeping with the Wikipedia approach of resolving differences by civil discussion aimed at seeking consensus. Your block will expire soon, and I would urge you to listen to what people have been telling you here and adjust your approach in accordance with Wikipedia's consensus model, as I would not like to see you receiving further blocks in the future. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To Code16 and Zebedee: Not true. My latest edit (+1,189) on Sunni Islam was reverted by two persons only. When Code16 made unfair report about me, no one, including Ian, blocked me simply because I didn't violate any thing and it was unfair report from Code16! مصطفى النيل (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is it that makes you think it's OK to make 2 reverts against 2 other editors? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sunni Islam. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. clpo13_(talk) 19:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing exactly the same edit warring you were blocked for last time was not a smart move. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Am I even banned from editing or reverting in the article of Sunni Islam at all?! I am NOT of course. This block doesn't make sense at all. مصطفى النيل (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were blocked for edit warring, and after the block expired, you proceeded with the edit war. That's why you're blocked. Use the article talk page. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 21:19, 4 June 2016 (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.

If you are engaged in a dispute over content, you need to discuss the matter on the article talk page and seek a consensus - and not just wait a bit and then repeat edit warring to reinstate your preferred version. Please read and understand WP:Consensus, WP:EW and WP:RS, which all appear to be relevant to the problems you are encountering. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of أحمد المنصورة (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) 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. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.sas.rochester.edu/rel/people/faculty/hughes_aaron/index.html

[2] ttp://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA476265

[3] ttp://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA476265

[4] ttp://www.sas.rochester.edu/rel/people/faculty/hughes_aaron/index.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]