User talk:Salim567

Salim567, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Salim567! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Muhammad's wives, 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. Specifically, it seems that you added two statements about the publication time of one text in order to support an opinion about its reliability that you hold yourself. HaeB (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jesus in Islam. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Night Wolf¹²²³ 13:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Draft:Richard Mac McKinney[edit]

If this was the first article that you created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

The page Draft:Richard Mac McKinney has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appeared to be a direct copy from https://www.courierpress.com/story/opinion/2019/04/11/viewpoint-almost-became-terrorist/3444472002/, https://www.pressandguide.com/news/from-islamophobic-to-muslim-convert-veteran-richard-mckinney-once-planned-to-bomb-mosque/article_be151d2c-7d93-11e9-99f3-a7191a43886a.html, and https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/why-this-would-be-mosque-bomber-converted-to-islam/UBM6GI73RWP4CDFH6QIEHBSVMI/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition has been be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review — Diannaa (talk) 09:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of converts to Islam[edit]

Well, you are not providing WP:RS sources with the entries in the article [1]. Please source them. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Richard Mckinney (US Marine) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Richard Mckinney (US Marine) 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/Richard Mckinney (US Marine) 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.

Govvy (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Idris Tawfiq for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Idris Tawfiq 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/Idris Tawfiq (3rd nomination) 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.

GirthSummit _(blether) 12:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Islam, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Independent and Eternal. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad and the Bible[edit]

Many of the websites you have WP:CITED are not WP:RS. Wikipedia only accepts information from WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by Rs published books Salim567 (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please take your time to read WP:IRS. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are atheist islam is more dangerous than Christianity. Islam strictly calls atheist to be killed. Salim567 (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Islam disregards evolution Salim567 (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, in Iran they teach the theory of evolution as valid.

I'm not an atheist, and choosing between Islam and Christianity is like choosing to be bitten either by the dog or by the cat. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But Christianity promoted evolution. Moroever News regarding Iran are fake news controlled by Fatwa Salim567 (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only Christrian countries provide such freedom for propagation of evolution not Islamic countries. Salim567 (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thats why find lot of Christian apologetics who are atheist themselves but debunk islamic claims . Salim567 (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTHEM. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have knowledge about published books sources but i have knowledge about these. Salim567 (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are deist you still have to support protestant christianity in order for the theory of evolution to be taught in every school. Salim567 (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Islam is spreading in America .

In coming years we wont have fossil fuels so no tanks, no planes so muslims might take over government through sword. Salim567 (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your wish you can revert the edits Salim567 (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am making another edit please give approval. Salim567 (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I explained below what Wikipedia is about. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the famous bible commentary through Scribd online library and cited the sources in new edit. Salim567 (talk) 05:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful[edit]

Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
"Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:

"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. We're not a directory, nor a forum, nor a place for you to "spread the word".

If^[1] you are here to promote pseudoscience, extremism, fundamentalism or conspiracy theories, we're not interested in what you have to say.

If you came here to maim, bash and troll: be gone! If you came here to edit constructively and learn to abide by policies and guidelines: you're welcome. Tgeorgescu (talk) 31 May 2021 17:08:31 (UTC)

References

^ I'm not saying that you do, but if...

No original research of Ancient or Medieval sources[edit]

Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 244#Gospel of John. Read it slowly and carefully and you'll find out why is it of application. If WP:CHOPSY say that the Bible is wrong something, so says Wikipedia. WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies to giving the lie to those universities, especially when they all toe the same line. I oppose WP:PROFRINGE in our articles. You may read the full rationale at WP:NOBIGOTS.

For Wikipedia, WP:FRINGE is what WP:CHOPSY say it's fringe, not what the Christian Church says it's fringe.

Ancient documents and artifacts referring to the Bible may only be analyzed by mainstream Bible scholars (usually full professors from reputable, mainstream universities), as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Your own analysis is unwanted, also, my own analysis is unwanted, and so on, this applies to each and every editor. Wikipedia is not a website for ventilating our own personal opinions.

Wikipedia editors have to WP:CITE WP:SOURCES. That's the backbone of writing all Wikipedia articles. Talk pages of articles are primarily meant for discussing WP:SOURCES.

Original research and original synthesis are prohibited in all their forms as a matter of website policy. Repeated trespassers of such rule will be blocked by website administrators.

Being a Wikipedian means you are a volunteer, not that you are free to write whatever you please. See WP:NOTFREESPEECH and WP:FREE. Same as K12 teachers, Wikipedians don't have academic freedom. Tgeorgescu (talk) 31 May 2021 17:08:31 (UTC)

June 2021[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Jesus in Islam. Elizium23 (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About me following you [2]. I've been on WP since 2009. I've never written anyting on Quora, and I only use this WP-account. Also, never write on my talkpage again, you are not welcome there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now you proved me overacting Salim567 (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will contact admins to block all your accounts.

Salim567 (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know dirty tricks of hackers providing links lol . I didn't click it. Salim567 (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned you in a thread at WP:ANI, here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threat_at_my_talkpage. I'm telling you because it's the rules. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Salim567[edit]

A tag has been placed on your user page, User:Salim567, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Hayleez (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Salim567. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] I'm not saying that you do, but if...

[1]