User talk:SimoooIX

Proposed deletion of Almohad conquest of Ifriqiya

The article Almohad conquest of Ifriqiya has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There is nothing in this one liner that can't be added to the Almohad article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. M.Bitton (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Almohad conquest of Ifriqiya for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Almohad conquest of Ifriqiya is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Almohad conquest of Ifriqiya until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

M.Bitton (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

lets discuss

This section was added my this user the sources he gives are made up most of the information he gave isnt found look through it you wont be able to find it and if its not rekevant to saudi arabia then dont add it and shariah law varies depending on the madhab so you can't say saudi arabia also follows the same laws

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_in_Saudi_Arabia&diff=prev&oldid=1159477559 2A02:C7C:E83A:0:A061:9AB2:921F:2DF1 (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

By "talk page" i meant the article's talk page and not mine. Anyway, a section about what does the Islamic law says about rape seems a good idea to me, because, as i've said in my comment, rape in Saudi Arabia is regulated by Islamic law. So readers might be interested in what the islamic law says about it. And there is no need for Saudi to be mentioned in the cited sources. Thanks.

(Pinging @1Firang) SimoooIX (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok butthe already exists a page like that on here its called rape in islamic law this one only deals with saudi arabia so leave it as that 2A02:C7C:E83A:0:A061:9AB2:921F:2DF1 (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Though a brief summary of it is needed so readers can have a general idea about it. And of course, we can add a link to rape in Islamic law for readers who might be intersted in details. Thanks. SimoooIX (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

But why? If its not applied to saudi arabia it shouldnt be on there the laws on this issue vary depending on the madhab that page mentions the difference of views and opinion's. 2A02:C7C:E83A:0:A061:9AB2:921F:2DF1 (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

IP, it is about Islamic law under the section of the same name. If you persist in your edit war, your IP will be blocked. Think of other people who may be using the same IP (they'll also get blocked).-1Firang (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Or you will be blocked only one source talks about saudi arabia I looked properly all the other sources do not that one source has remained 94.5.50.5 (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@1Firang, could you pease revert their last edits on the concerned page? If i do it i'll be violating the 3RR. I think we should report them to the admins.SimoooIX (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

S/he has added matter more relevant to Saudi Arabia, so I don't want to revert that.-1Firang (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

But they removed sourced content... SimoooIX (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I added the whole procedure in what saudi arabia follows also added a reference that saudi arabia does punish it 94.5.50.5 (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The content you added is appreciated. Though you still have removed content and sources without adequately explaining why. SimoooIX (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Because it did not apply to saudi arabia as they were not followed in saudi arabia the new content shows that which aspets are followed 94.5.50.5 (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

SimoooIX, I suggest we leave it to him.-1Firang (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Alright then, however we must keep an eye on what they do with the article. SimoooIX (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Amarar Tribe

The sources listed don't mention anything about the Amarar tribe of Beja claiming descent from the Quraysh. The sources themselves never mentioned anything about them having any lineages going back to the Quraysh. Why would the Amarar who are a Beja tribe and Muslim claim descent from the Quraysh who are the enemies of Prophet Muhammad(SAW)?. 2600:1700:2F01:CDC0:7CE1:DAAF:CD18:9B63 (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

It does SimoooIX (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

No it doesn't the first is a book about the treaties of Anglo Egyptian Sudan. The second book talks about Mahdism and the page number does not mention anything about the Amarar tribe nor their connections to the Qurayshi Arabs. The third source is just talking about the ethnic backgrounds during the British era in Sudan. No where does it mention anything about the Anarar tribe. If you don't believe me check the three sources yourselves it took me 30 minutes to find anything on the Amarar tribe and all 3 sources don't mention anything on the Amarar nor Qurayshi Arabs. 2600:1700:2F01:CDC0:7CE1:DAAF:CD18:9B63 (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The source cited there is Britannica, which is a reliable source. So read the link i gave you and stop wasting our time. SimoooIX (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

It's an Encyclopædia that is just a copy of the same stuff written in this article with the same sources that I already explained earlier don't mention anything about the Amarar tribe or Quraysh those sources just talk about the Ethnicites during the British era in Sudan and the second source is about the mahdiyya revolt against the British in Sudan. 2600:1700:2F01:CDC0:7CE1:DAAF:CD18:9B63 (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I haven't checked the other sources, and it's unnecessary because Britannica alone is a trustworthy source. Even if the information isn't mentioned in the cited sources, it could be exclusive to Britannica, which, as I've mentioned before, is reliable. However, if you have another reliable source that contradicts the statement, that would be a different situation. Your edit is reverted. And please do not edit war. SimoooIX (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that's a Brittanica Encyclopedia that is connected to wikipedia with two sources which I explained don't mention anything about the Amarar tribe of the Beja have Qurayshi Arab ancestry and the "Brittanica" is a word for word copy of this article not the actual Brittanica website. I will try to find a reliable source on this matter that refutes the claim of the Amarar having any connections to the Qurayshi Arab tribe 2600:1700:2F01:CDC0:7CE1:DAAF:CD18:9B63 (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Talk page reverts

You usually shouldn't remove comments from your talk page unless you're archiving it, or correcting small mistakes on comments you made. Such as you did here [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] and here [7]. For more information, check out WP:TPG Crainsaw (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Crainsaw, thank you for the message.

WP:OWNTALK says:

"Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. Users may also remove some content in archiving"

Also according to WP:REMOVED:

"Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred.[...]

A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

-Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block.

-Miscellany for deletion tags (while the discussion is in progress).

-Speedy deletion tags and requests for uninvolved administrator help (an administrator will quickly determine if these are valid or not; use the link embedded in the notice to object and post a comment, do not just remove the tag).

-For IP editors, templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address. This includes schools, military installations, WiFi hotspots, and other shared IP addresses, but not dynamic IP addresses. Very old content on these pages may be removed.

I don't think i violated any WP policy/rule by removing those sections. Thanks. SimoooIX (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)