User talk:Ali aalalbayt

Everything is verifiable, why are you so concerned about the wikipedia entry ? why don't you fix the issues in the university ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali aalalbayt (talk • contribs) 17:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ali aalalbayt: I am concerned about the article, like any other good Wikipedia editor would be. It is not my job or in my responsibility to fix issues at the university, as I have no affiliation with it. The content you keep adding remains to be an issue due to following reasons:

External links are not supposed to be part of the body of the article. Wikipedia is not a directory or a search engine. Read more on the guideline here: Wikipedia:External links
The problem section is entirely based on unreliable sources, as they are self-published. In addition, in this form the section does not add any real value to the article, as it merely contains of links and few words. You bring up a good point: verifiability. Wikipedia does not work in the way that you add content, and the reader has to figure out how to verify it. As per Wikipedia policies, The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material (WP:PROVEIT). Links from Glassdoor and/or a blog are self-published and do not act as reliable sources/references.

I suggest you read about the Wikipedia policies that I hinted you at, prior to adding the content again. NJD-DE (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, the changes were there for about 6 months and then someone from the university comes and changes the section "notable people" and removes 'notable problems" and suddenly the section "notable problems" becomes a problem. Are you sure you don't work for the PR team of the university ? even https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_bin_Salman contains a section on "controversies"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali aalalbayt (talk • contribs) 08:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not about having a controversy sections. That's quite a common thing here actually to include controversies in articles. However, once again, those controversies need to be backed by reliable sources, just as any other content (if not even better) in the article as well. As you mentioned the MBS article, you will notice that the content there is referenced with sources considered reliable, e.g. CNN, The New York Times, The Guardian. The controversies do not just consist of few words claiming an issues, and the section does not act simply as a link directory.

As Wikipedia is run by volunteers, it can happen that articles contain problematic content for months, even years. There simply is no approval process on most articles, so a lot of times it happens that people add content that does not adhere to the policies such as in this case. Just because something has been in a certain way for some months, doesn't make it acceptable though.

I do not work for the university, an external PR team, nor am I intending to. If my contributions - that are visible for anyone here - are not reason enough for you to believe this, you may open a discussion at WP:COIN. However, the question then may be raised why you insist on adding content, that is not properly sourced and has not been covered by local or international press. NJD-DE (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

well, why did you say that I may get blocked from editing in the future ? did they pay you ? regarding news entries, it's hard to get news entries about a university that has princes and princesses studying in it and that pays a lot of money to get fake ranks in the Times of Higher Education.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali aalalbayt (talk • contribs) 19:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand the challenge you face. However, that does not lift your obligation to prove the claims with reliable sources to present the article from a neutral point of view.

It's good practice placing an explanatory message on user talk pages when reverting a user's edit. It is also common on Wikipedia that stronger user warnings are used when editors are unresponsive to edit summaries and user talk page messages. Those stronger messages also include a note about blocks on Wikipedia.

I have made it very clear so far, that I don't have affiliations with that university of any kind. Neither did you provide any evidence that would indicate otherwise. Therefore please refrain from making such accusations against me. Otherwise, I will consider this as a personal attack. NJD-DE (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who you are and there is nothing personal here. No need to refer to "personal attacks". KSA is not known for freedom of speech and expatriates are always worried to talk because they will face deportation and contract termination quite easily (labour law does not give much protection to expatriates and saudis favour saudis at the end of the day). The only verifiable case is Hisham Abad whose contract was terminated in a very inelegant way as he wrote at https://alfaisal-university.blogspot.com/ - other people who are talking at https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/Reviews/Alfaisal-University-Reviews-E827976.htm are just worried about their jobs, some people are really desperate in the current situation and really need a job but are still trying to improve their work conditions while remaining in this university by talking anonymously. The current entry on Wikipedia is mostly to help people who are outside to decide for themselves and not fall victims of the PR propaganda. You can just compare between the ranks of this university in different systems as someone mentioned at https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/Reviews/Alfaisal-University-Reviews-E827976.htm As I mentioned, I just found it suspicious that the entry was on Wikipedia for 6 months and then you suddenly show up after someone with an IP from KSA changed some entries and deleted the comments on "notable problems".

I am quite new on Wikipedia but it seems to be a great source to have an idea about a particular question. So it's better to have different opinions.

September 2020

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Alfaisal University, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. NJD-DE (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Alfaisal University, you may be blocked from editing. The problems section was not referenced by any reliable sources. It just consisted of external links that are not supposed to be part of the article body. Please address those issues first BEFORE reverting my edit again. NJD-DE (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Alfaisal University, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. NJD-DE (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We had this discussion before and I explained the reasons of additions and for adding the sources as they are. I can confirm that everything described there is accurate. Issue is that there is no way to have independent sources confirming this since this university is very good at PR and the managers are close to the royal family, there is no way to have entries in the media. there is a section "controversies" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Bath and mentioning the problems at this saudi university is important since it will help people seeing it as it is there and not being disappointed and feeling trapped especially that it's hard to move out of there since working in saudi is not a good thing in one's cv so people have to think and have all the elements before going there and not being tricked by the PR as it happened to many including myself. you don't seem to understand the situation but i will re-edit the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali aalalbayt (talk • contribs) 16:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we did have this discussion. The situation is still the same: Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. If there is an issue that has been reported on by reliable sources you can include it in an article. Otherwise not. The University of Bath article in comparison to your edits has a properly written and referenced controversy section. Please refrain from adding the content again, and familiarize yourself first with how Wikipedia works through its guidelines and policies. NJD-DE (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you are still not referencing any reliable sources, I have reverted again. NJD-DE (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I didn't know about the " Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs" but one wonders how people can know the truth during these times. The testimony of the ex-employee Hisham Abad is a reliable source since he's publishing emails and other verifiable material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali aalalbayt (talk • contribs) 16:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, if I have disappointed you with that piece of information. I believe you when you say, that you trust the former employee's testimonies. However in Wikipedia view it's not a reliable source.

Side-note: In talk pages, it's a good thing to sign your comments using the four tildes ~~~~, or clicking signature button. NJD-DE (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logarithm

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Logarithm, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I will check this out but this is a known reference https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AA%D8%AD%D9%81%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%B9%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AF_%D9%84%D8%B0%D9%88%D9%8A_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%B4%D8%AF_%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AF Ali aalalbayt (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, https://arsco.org/article-detail-124-8-0 Ali aalalbayt (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]