User talk:Iskandar323

Please self-revert

Hi, you cannot change the order of editors posts to where you want them to be since that defeats the purpose of a neutral RFC. After Iraniangal777 said that they "agree with Hogo-2020 that much of this is true and can be stated in wikivoice"[1], you changed[2] the RFC format to a (Yes/no) format, and then moved comments[3] to make it look like most voters support "no" but most voters support replacing that quote. When I undid this[4] you reverted it again also deleting one of my comments[5]. Please self revert and let the answers to your RFC question remain as they were and not how you would like them to look. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I added the yes/no point because a lot of people commenting in the RFC don't seem to understand that an RFC is not simply a normal discussion, and that they way of casting your vote in and RFC involves stating an answer clearly in bold type. And when Hogo made a comment about my edit, he was quite clearly not responding to the comment before but starting an entirely new thread. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

ANI-notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022

Your edit to American Israel Public Affairs Committee 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. Adding short quotations is okay, but adding the surrounding prose is not okay. I removed the entire addition for this reason. — Diannaa (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Diannaa I'm not quite sure how you came to this conclusion - that material was multi-sourced and paraphrased. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The Guardian says "The US’s most powerful pro-Israel lobby group has been accused of putting support for Israel before American democracy after it declared its backing for the election campaigns of three dozen Republican members of Congress who tried to block President Biden’s presidential victory." Your version says "After the formation of its first political action committee (PAC) in March 2022, AIPAC was criticized for putting its support for Israel before democratic ideals after it declared its backing for the election campaigns of 37 Republican members of Congress who voted against certifying Biden’s 2020 United States presidential election victory after the 2021 United States Capitol attack."

The Guardian: The former head of the strongly pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League, Abe Foxman, described the endorsements as a “sad mistake”." Your version: " Abe Foxman, the former head of the strongly pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League, described the endorsements as a “sad mistake”"

The Guardian: "(Aipac) has defended the move by saying that support for the Jewish state overrides other issues ". Your version: "Aipac defended the endorsements by saying its support for the Jewish state overrode other issues". Overlapping content is shown in bold.— Diannaa (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Diannaa: I think that's fixed now. I excised the bulk of the offending passages, and re-paraphrased the remainder. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I've removed some less important details to clean it up further. Thank you,— Diannaa (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

April 2022

Hello, I'm Tow. I noticed that you recently removed content from Halal without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Tow (talk) 07:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Tow: I explained perfectly well why in the edit comment. You attached a source containing a trivial mention about the subject and unduly aggrandized it into a new section. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, read your edit summary. Ignore the above, I have added multiple more sources. Tow (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I have gotten back to editing Wikipedia after a long time. I appreciate your very helpful edit summaries on Halal. Thank You! :) Tow (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Need move a page

Move the page

The page Sufi–Salafi relations should be moved to "Sunni–Salafi relations" or "Traditional Sunni–Salafi relations" https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348940722_Islamic_Traditionalism_in_a_Globalizing_World_Sunni_Muslim_identity_in_Kerala_South_India page 2, 3. Traditional Sunnis are called Sunnis and Wahabis/Salafis are called as such in the Kerala contexts. Moreover Sunnis in Kerala are not identified as Sufis, rather Sunnis itself. Deobandism is reformism. So common name for traditional Sunnis is "Traditional Sunnis. Only that can include all Ash'aris and Mathuridis in its definition. They may not necessarily follow Sufism. So the current name of page is incorrect. Neutralhappy (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Neutralhappy (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The article is not about Kerala or Sunnis, so I'm not sure where this is coming from. An oddity though the article may be, it is about comparisons between Salafism and Sufism, mysticism within Islam, and is named as such. Your attempted renaming seems to imply that you think it should be rescoped, but that is an entirely separate kind of discussion from a simple page move. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 We need you to put your opening comments. (Okay sorry for the bad Uncle Sam Uncle Sam impersonation, but can you please put your opening comments in here? It would really help. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Topic ban

Be cautious with edits like this and this. You are still subject to a broadly construed topic ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict and these edits (particularly the first) clearly breach it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Callanecc: I appealed the TBAN and it was commuted to time served. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

My apologies Iskandar323, I saw that immediately after I posted the message above. Sorry, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Some vaguely Buddhist thoughts

Thanks for your input in and surrounding the RM regarding The Buddha.

Your comment on baiting was particularly welcome. You might find my (longstanding) thoughts related to this at how to reveal yourself without really trying interesting.

It is sad that some participants seem so far from Buddhist ideals. See my essay the middle path and of course comments are very welcome. There's a link there or another on my Wikipedia user page to put us in touch by email if you like. Andrewa (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Ghazali

Abu ali Farmadi page literally states he is a Naqshbandi sheikh with the sources attached. You could have just added them simply on :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juice3kh (talk • contribs) 22:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Juice3kh: Al-Ghazali's teacher was a Naqshbandi, but we do not know if he adopted their creed or believed in their teachings. This needs a reliable source. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

That is exactly my point? Not sure what the issue is. Juice3kh (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Oops, I must have been staring at the screen too long - thought this was talking about Ghazali and not his teacher - I've restored it. Many apologies. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding! All the best! Juice3kh (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Pavel Ponomaryov

Hello Iskandar323. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Pavel Ponomaryov, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

This is just to say that I've left you correctly placed BLPROD tag on the article. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Striking other users comments

You not allowed to strike other users comments except very special case(like socks) if you think that you user is incorrect you may add your comment or react to his. Please revert your strike. Thanks. Shrike (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

reliable source or not!!

@Iskandar323 NCERT is national council of education research and training(India) . It is the one of the most reliable sources of India. not a author but a committee of authors wrote books together Yritu (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

please revert your action!! other reference;

The earliest mentions of the Nights refer to it as an Arabic translation from a Persian book*, Hezār Afsān (aka Afsaneh or Afsana), meaning 'The Thousand Stories'. In the 10th century, Ibn al-Nadim compiled a catalogue of books (the "Fihrist") in Baghdad (( from that page))!!!

• Indian Persian Yritu (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Yritu: The first stop is providing some properly expanded citations and url links to credible hosting platforms. Also, I suggest explaining your edit in talk. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Gautama Buddha

You may have seen the RM at Talk:Gautama Buddha was closed. I clarified with the closer that the close is without prejudice against an immediate renomination for "Buddha" or "The Buddha". I believe the latter is most in line with Wikipedia policies; I'm working on a nomination statement now. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 17:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the latter appears more feasible, as the declarative form avoids the accusations of ambiguity and the case fits the guideline of WP:THE to a tee. I also think emphasizing, as you already did effectively, how few if any reliable, secondary sources use the name "Gautama Buddha" in that form, is key. It is a bit incredible how this is being totally overlooked. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

On further reflection I've recognized that I don't care enough to fight this particular battle. But if you want to go ahead with a follow-up RM, these were my thoughts:

• The important thing is to keep the discussion focused on "The Buddha"; if a bunch of people support "Buddha" but not "The Buddha" it will be very hard to get consensus.
• Fortunately, besides the WP:THE arguments, it appears that "the Buddha" is more common anyway: see Ngrams for of [the] Buddha and when [the] Buddha
• I think the strongest point of evidence is the fact that the article's sources, including authors from South Asia, overwhelming use "Buddha" or "The Buddha" instead of "Gautama Buddha". This weakens the main opposition argument; if it's good enough for Buddhist scholarship it ought to be good enough for a general-purpose encyclopedia.
• It's also important to directly address in the nomination statement the fact that "Buddha" is a title and there are multiple Buddhas in Buddhism, as many of the oppose voters wrongly assumed that the support voters were unaware of this. My page views graph showing Gautama Buddha to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC would be useful.
• Lastly, the nomination statement must be concise, or else people will vote without reading all of it.

If you choose to take this on, best of luck to you. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 18:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

History of Islam

Hello, thank you for conveying your reason to reverting of my edits to the wikipedia page 'History of Islam'. I would like to present my point regarding the translation of the Qur'an in the 1992 excerpt which was quoted stating the Qur'an as an ARAB book. The author of that paper might have not intended for that, but there arises a fine difference while referring to the Qur'an as ARAB book rather than an ARABIC book. Where the latter, denotes the language in which Qur'an was revealed which is the correct translation of the verse, from which the author of the 1992 excerpt paraphrased. A reference to Qur'an as an ARAB book, falsely hints towards an idea of it being a book for the Arab Nation solely, which was the point being made in the section. The correct fact is that it is a book meant for the entire Humanity but had to be sent down in Arabic (language) so that the Arab (people) would not object/reject it altogether. As a supporting evidence, I had included the Qur'an text (primary source) and its authentic, widely used translation and also an exegesis (popular), all of which are recognized among the muslims as correct sources on this matter. Since you objected on the addition of this last part, for reasons you believe to be right, I didn't object either on its removal. But in addition, I had to remove the section about the 1992 excerpt. I am convinced that the reasons I have given are fair and in good faith to the Qur'an as well as to wikipedia. Hope you understand my point of view. 122.175.18.210 (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@122.175.18.210: The purpose of Wikipedia is not to provide one 'correct' version of knowledge or events, but to present all valid viewpoints neutrally. (See WP:TRUTH). Here, the author's choice of words and opinions are their own. Perhaps it is a mischaracterization, perhaps not, from their viewpoint. But their perspective (as a religious professor) is still valid. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Topic ban?

Hello, you were topic banned from topics related to the Arab-Israeli conflict for one year in September 2021, yet you seem to make a large number of edits related to this area all the same. Unless your topic ban has been revoked, these edits are in breach of that ban. Jeppiz (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: Yes, it was appealed and commuted. See User_talk:Iskandar323#Topic_ban. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't see any problems with your edits so just wanted to check to be sure. Apologies for bothering. Jeppiz (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Origin of Salafism

The movement known as Salafism originated in Egypt in the nineteenth century as per the source I had cited. My statement was not at all contrary to the body of article; not even the opening sentence of the article. The opening sentence clearly contains "reform" making my edit in line with body of the article and even the opening sentence. I kindly request to explain your objection to my edit you undid. In addition, I request you to show what part is contrary to my edit. Or are you of the opinion that the statement should be : Wahabism emerged in the name of Wahabism in the ninghteenth century in Egypt. I eagerly wait for your response. Neutralhappy (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, first things first, Salafism and Wahhabism are totally separate things, so you need to read both those pages and gain an understanding of that. Secondly, I explained in my edit comment was was problematic with your lead addition. Third, the source you provided was never a reliable one in the first place. There are many quality books and journals to reference. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Query

A terrorist who was executed for bombing innocent civilians,is Wikipedia supposed to add his achievements like what degrees he has acquired while he was in jail?Its like adding Osama Bin Laden's achievement after killing thousands in 9/11. So,can i conclude this by saying wikipedia promotes terrorism? Shubham010000 (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Shubham010000: Wikipedia reflects verifiable facts, and education is a relevant component of any biography, regardless of the activities of an article's subject. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Palestinian citizens of Israel

Was it you who mentioned recently the issue of East Jerusalem Palestinians being included in the Israeli stats as citizens of Israel? I have been looking around and can't find that discussion. (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: No, it wasn't me, but I vaguely remember the discussion and I think it might have been @Nableezy that quoted the information to that effect. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

It was Tritomex trying to dispute the Amnesty report on Israel saying that x% of Palestinian citizens were in a certain area by saying more than that are in Jerusalem, forgetting the fact that those are not citizens and that is not Israel. In the AI RSN RFC here (under discussion). nableezy - 13:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

It's easy to forget these things, what's been illegally annexed, who gets citizenship, who only gets residency permits. Reality is so fuzzy at the edges. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

That's the one! Ta very much :) Selfstudier (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Al-Wishah

1st, thanks for welcoming most changes to your great new article. I know some are unquestionable ("a 14th century" > "a 14th-century work") where you just forgot a word, but articles can be like art and people can get protective and cranky about them. 2nd, in particular, I tried to make the links as on-point as possible so marriage > Islamic marriage, marriage contract > Islamic marriage contracts instead of prenups, Egyptian > Mamluk Egypt, &c. I think that's the most helpful for understanding this work in its context but, if I overdid it and you prefer (eg) to link to Yemeni people instead of 14th-century Yemen, please do go in and put things where you think they should go. — LlywelynII 22:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't mind more contextualised links. More generally, I've found it that you get more done and waste less time on Wikipedia if you bend like a reed to change. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

3rd, I see a redirect you should create. xD — LlywelynII 22:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Noted. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Iskandar323! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Quirks of the WikiProject Military History ratings, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

1RR violation

Hello, You've reverted content on Israel here, and less than 2 hours later redid the same revert. These two revers violate WP:1RR, which is not permitted as you were made aware previously. Kindly self-revert, otherwise I will have to involve WP:AE. You have been warned against edit warring and violating 1RR before. “WarKosign” 08:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)