User talk:Emir of Wikipedia

ref dump

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38637123
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38711850
http://na.ae/en/ourtresure/sheikhkhalifa.aspx
http://www.na.ae/en/mediacenter/e-publications/index.aspx in the format http://www.na.ae/en/Images/LIWA01.pdf
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-foreign-policy-mess-experts-2017-2 (National Security Council's Deputies Committee)

Emirate of Nejd infobox

Hello Emir of Wikipedia,

You changed the infobox of the article “Emirate of Nejd”. You changed the religion from “Sunni Islam” to “Wahhabi Islam”. May I ask you do you have a reliable source that “Wahhabi Islam” was the official religion in the “Emirate of Nejd”?

I would be happy if you reply.

Best regards,

Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.34.242.63 (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear Tom. Here you go.

References

Hello Emir of Wikipedia,

Thank you very much for your reply and the source. The source says: “The fragile second Sa`udi-Wahhabi emirate (1824-91) coexisted with a new regional power to the north of Riyadh.”

The source calls this emirate “Sa`udi-Wahhabi emirate“. The source doesn`t mention that this emirate identifies oneself as a “Wahhabi emirate“. I think this emirate identifies oneself as a state with the official religion “Sunni Islam”.

Best regards,

Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.35.178.128 (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 Ad Orientem (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

about Descendants of Ibn Saud.

The pages contain members of Al Saud dynasty or family. The grandsons is sorted by their birthdate. Prince Faisal bin Thamir bin Abdulaziz Al Saud's father Thamir bin Abdulaziz Al Saud has died in 1958 or 1959. Thats why Faisal bin Thamir cannot be born after 1960. Thats why I placed it under born 1960 and above born 1962.

Thanks, Shahriar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.200.10.98 (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:1RR

Thank you for your self reversion. You are of course free to discuss the challenged material on the article talk page and seek consensus. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Betsy Devos Reversion

You recently removed my edit on Betsy Devos section. I cited a credible neutral source, but I will try to add more of her past experiences that make her qualified for the position. Do you think that would make it a better edit? I want to try and provide as much content as possible to users, and I think that her controversies are necessary for users to have as complete of a picture as possible, so I'm hoping that they can be put back in (albeit with a section talking about her positives as well). If you could re-implement it, I would appreciate it and I can add to it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick.aus96 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I did revert your edit with this edit. You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article, as per the "post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people" sanctions. The source you cited was credible and neutral, but you just stuck it at the end of a paragraph you wrote where it was not supporting what you said. There is no need to add experiences that make her qualified for the position if they do not exist, but you could help keep the page up to date and write she actually does in her role. If you are not sure if you can make the best edits then please ask for help, do not just test the waters on biographies of living people. Thanks for trying provide as much content as possible to users, this is an encyclopaedia so do not add trivia. Her controversies should be included if notable and covered by the reliable sources, but having a specific section is not needed if it can fit into other sections chronologically. A section titled "Scandal" with no reliable sources mentioning the term is not neutral. A complete picture is good, however if no positives are present then their is nothing to mention. I will not re-implement it sadly, but I think you will be grateful that I taught you this instead of you just getting blocked. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Nick.aus96:,@Emir of Wikipedia: Wouldn't it be better if this discussion occurred at the talk page of the article? Some of this is a question of editor judgment. Emir: I agree and disagree with some of your assertions and we need to find consensus. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Badlanders (TV series) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Badlanders (TV series) 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/Badlanders (TV series) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

A project invitation

Hi Emir,

There is a potential editing project, involving the current status of the new article: Ethical Journalism, that I wanted to find out two things about. First if you might be qualified to participate in this project, and then also if you might be interested. I've noticed that you have a pretty good editing record record here, and it appears to me that your political leanings might be more "conservative" then "liberal." The fact that I'm not 100% sure about your "political leanings," is obviously a sign of good editing, but also obviously, all of us are susceptible to having our own particular viewpoints, and there is certainly no harm in that.

If you might happen to read that article on journalism, obviously my own political leanings are way towards the left, which I must admit, sometimes causes me to behave a little "blindly." In fact with regards to that article, my own political leanings are so far to the left, that I think I may have screwed up that article, thus many complaints. If I am correct in my understanding of your political leanings, and if you might be interested, I would like to invite you to help us to rewrite this article in a fashion that is truly "neutral." I'm not going to ask you to commit yourself right now, but I am going to ask you if you might be interested in discussing this any further with me? For an idea of how this whole concept first began, you could check out my dialogue with Shawn about this possibility.

Looking forward to your reply.

Thanks,

Scott P. (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

PS: By the way, congratulations on gaining the Journeyman Editor award, you most certainly deserve it.

@Scottperry: I am a bit busy at the moment, so I probably won't be able to help you today. However it does seem like something that would interest me, and I will discuss it with you further. This may be later today, or it could be in a few days. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much Emir. Will look forward to your reply.

Scott P. (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Scottperry: I identify as being at least somewhat qualified to participate in the project, as I have some knowledge of ethical journalism. As stated above I am interested in such a project. Thanks for taking a look through my editing history, and I agree with your observation of my political leanings. My initial reading of the article and your discussion with Shawn suggests that to me the issue is not really a problem of neutrality but rather that it is a WP:COATRACK. I do not think that you have acted blindly due to political leanings, but rather that you have made more of an essay in the topic of "ethical journalism" rather than an encyclopedia article describing it. The complaints are understandable to me, but I don't think the article is necessarily screwed. I will happily help in a rewrite of an article or just edit it for neutrality. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Emir. If you might've been following the Afd discussion about this article, you probably noticed that currently the discussion seems to be trending towards a redirect, which would amount to a "go-ahead" for this project. Also, a related recent development which you might find to be of interest, check out the WP:Trump policy project

Photo copyright compliance policy question

Dear Emir of Wikipedia,

I noticed that you reverted the image I added to this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sireen_Hamsho may I ask you for the reason? I took the picture from the person's offical page, should I not?

Can you also please advise how to correct the spelling of the title name as there is no evidence for such spelling provided.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by HanadiAslan (talk • contribs) 16:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussed on the questioners talk page. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!

Dear Emir of Wikipdia, thank you very much for your helpful replay! Yes, I'm fairly new and would like to get more familier with the tools so I picked some articles to develop based on self interest and knowledge, my main focus is on Syrian women and Arab personality in Wikipedia English, if you have any other advice to me I will be more than happy to receive. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by HanadiAslan (talk • contribs) 19:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@HanadiAslan: You may wish to take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Syria. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!

After about a decade, I've finally decided to go "registered" with my edits, as opposed to just an IP address. And only the second time I get an edit reverted - I'll need to fix that!

Factually... (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Factually...: No problem. I suggest you look at what I posted on your talkpage, but thanks for deciding to register. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Yolanda & Bella Hadid page

Unexplained reverting. Divide223 (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)