User talk:Al-Andalusi

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Women in Islam into Sexual Violation in Islamic Law. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Diannaa: my edit summaries already note the fact that the content has been copied/moved. Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

That's not true on the edits the bot picked up, which were this one and this one. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:Hijra has been nominated for discussion

Category:Hijra, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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) 07:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Al-Andalusi. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

1RR vio

Note you violated 1RR with this. I urge you to self revert.Icewhiz (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: My last change on the page was on Dec 10. Can you explain why is it 1RR? Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

My understanding of 1RR is that it applies on a per-article basis. Correct me if I'm wrong. Al-Andalusi (talk)

per If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the revert..Icewhiz (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

You again broke it.Please rv yourself [1] --Shrike (talk) 08:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I strongly suggest you self-revert this.Icewhiz (talk) 08:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

1RR vio

Note - original authorship and revert - is a violation of the original author provision in ARBPIA's 1RR (and this paragraph is clearly ARBPIA). BLPCRIME is not a valid exemption to 1RR here as per BLPCRIME: This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. - and Bishara is clearly a public figure and well known.Icewhiz (talk) 07:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Azmi is a "relatively unknown" person. You'd have to look for him to find him, as opposed to say Mandela. In any case, your revert gives undue weight to what amounts to mere speculations and accusations. Somehow, with all the serious accusations on his head, Azmi managed to slip out of the country after he promised the authorities that he'd come back for interview! So this is a show put on by the Zionist regime and they're milking it to pass discriminating bills against Palestinian citizens...it does NOT belong to the lede. Azmi is known for a lot more things that what happens or is said in that shithole Knesset. A user recently made additions to wiki page to illustrate that.

Looking at the history, it seems you violated 1RR on that same page. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

He was a member of Knesset and party leader - definition of a public figure.

How did I violate 1RR? I performed exactly 1 revert (in 2 consecutive edits, with no intervening edits by other users, which counts as 1 per WP:3RR A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.). Earlier I added tags, which is not a revert. If you tell me what I should self-revert, I will.

I respectfully request you self-revert.Icewhiz (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

You made 2 sequential reverts to the page, but the reverts undid different content added by 2 different users and thus are completely independent from one another. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a single revert - per the relevant policy (WP:3RR) I quoted above.Icewhiz (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

It appears that 1RR supersedes 3RR policy. Show me an example of your behavior being allowed in am Israeli-Arab conflict page. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:1RR: The one-revert rule is described like the three-revert rule above, except with the words "more than one revert" replacing "more than three reverts" - so the cited clause from 3RR is not superseded, the sole difference is three being replaced with one.Icewhiz (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

1RR vio

this revert on Irgun is a violation of the original author clause in ARBPIA 1RR. I urge you to self revert.Icewhiz (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Azmi Bishara's article

Dear Al-Andalusi, hope this finds u well. Can u plz help me in reviewing my edits for Azmi Bishara article? I have done the edits at my sandbox as per Number 57 advice. If my edits are OK, plz move it to the article if u accept helping me in that. Thanks in advance.--Zeidan87 (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

1RR

You violated 1RR with [2] and [3] - besides removing well sourced material (which is beyond guilt by association - these organizations are in the same building and some of the senior staff has positions in both). Kindly self-revert.Icewhiz (talk) 08:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Nope, I did not. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Al-Andalusi, this does appear to be a 1RR violation on an article covered by WP:ARBPIA. You are still under notice for ARBPIA. It is in your interest to undo your last change. EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:, I'm seeing 2 reverts on different articles. How is that 1RR? Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, you violated 1rr in both articles with those diffs. You also violated 1rr in another article, with this diff [4] - however I did not ask you to self revert as others had edited since.Icewhiz (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Al-Andalusi, you removed Category:Muslim Brotherhood from Middle East Monitor twice on 25 February. The first time you were reverting an addition by User:Zakawer from 30 January, so both edits were reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:, I respectfully disagree. I understand that you came here from a WP:Canvassing call, but since you made the effort to go back in time and review the edits, then I was hoping you'd see that the context of my changes (on both articles) had nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict, but with the Qatar–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict. The organization does not profess its Brotherhood affiliation, and it would be a violation to label it among the "Muslim Brotherhood" because of a accusation from a critic. Yes I removed Category:Muslim Brotherhood twice but I will say that only the second removal counts as a proper "revert", although of a user with less than 500 edits (ARBPIA 30/500), and what you refer to as the first revert...well technically any change to an article can be classified as a revert if you look deep into the article's history with the intention to stir problems from nothing, which Icewhiz is doing here. What should be made clear here, is that Icewhiz arrived at those two pages and brought "Israel" and ARBIA into this only because he is stalking my contributions page, and found his questionable additions reverted. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Without regard to the merits (which EdJohnson has under control), I will just say that it is NOT canvassing when someone asks an admin to get involved. We volunteered and were specifically chosen by the community to do this, on behalf of the community, so framing it this way is flatly wrong. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I had watchlisted both pages after discussing (the inappropriate in my eyes) use of MEMO as a source with you on a separate article. Both organizations cover the Israeli/Palestinian conflict intensely, and the edit of mine that was reverted was clearly ARBPIA in that it involved Hamas. Some of the previously reverted content by you also involved Hamas and not just the wider brotherhood - and some of it was recently restored by NeilN who is extended comfirmed. Also - I did not canvass anyone to here.Icewhiz (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to the earlier edits mentioned by EdJohnson when I said they are not ARBPIA-related. So I believe that my revert of your additions would constitute the first ARBIA-related revert. You mention that the previously reverted content by me also involved Hamas, which is not quite right (unless you're referring to this [5], which on a normal day, would not bee seen as a "revert" but a normal edit). Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Which is a clear revert of [6] - a 30 Jan 2018 edit by an extended confirmed user on ARBPIA.Icewhiz (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Like I said, any change to an article can be framed as a "revert" if one wants to push a certain narrative. Here, you are referencing an edit made a month ago, which tells me how ridiculous this revert claim is. I can go back to some of your edits and demonstrate the same, and claim you've been reverting and violating 1RR on articles. As an editor, it's not expected of me to review an article's history and check each and every edit made to an article, before I can make a change to it, and hope that I'm not "reverting" and violating 1RR. Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Tariq Ramadan

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)