User talk:Samwelltarly1

Recent edit to Abdul Qadir Mumin

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Abdul Qadir Mumin, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 19:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the source was already in the article, the reuters link A senior al Shabaab commander and about 20 of his followers' have pledged allegiance to Islamic State, Samwelltarly1 (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ashmead Choate for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ashmead Choate 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/Ashmead Choate 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. -- haminoon (talk) 11:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

a bit sad that as soon as i reverted your NPOV addition, you jumped to my contributions and decided to try to delete the article i wrote

August 2016

Your recent editing history at Ahlam al-Nasr shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- haminoon (talk) 11:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

not an edit war. the rule is 3 reverts and I made only two.Samwelltarly1 (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

first account

Hi Samwelltarly1,

I am curious - is this your first Wikipedia account? -- haminoon (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

what does that have to do with 1. you adding NPOV descriptions and failing to write in neutral language/ failing to learn not to use the word 'terrorist' despite an apparent two years of using wiki 2. falsely accusing me of edit warring while actually engaging in it yourself 3. maliciously nominating an article for deletion with rubbish claims of lack of notability when the subject is evidently notable three times over? 4.your bad faith/grudge is further proved by the fact you went around changing all my edits incorrectly - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samwelltarly1 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Dirie

As long as his death has not been confirmed, WP:BLP applies and sources are obligatory. Furthermore a propaganda magazine is the exact opposite of what is considered a reliable source. Kleuske (talk) 12:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

having read your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashmead Choate, I think you should read WP:AGF and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Keeping up this behavior may get you blocked. Kleuske (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

wrong, try reading the guidelines

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

   the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; - That the man is dead is not an exceptional claim nor does making it serve any purpose for IS
   it does not involve claims about third parties; - he was a member of IS thus not a third part
   it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; - it does not
   there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; - There is no reasonable doubt that the information is correct
   the article is not based primarily on such sources. - It is the case that the majority of the article is based on other sources

+if you bothered reading this talk page just above and the talk pages we have had a discussion on, you would see I did assume good faith and no longer have any reason toSamwelltarly1 (talk) 12:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be misinterpreting WP:BLP and WP:RS. You assume bad faith, because you are accusing your esteemed opponent without evidence to back up that claim. Kleuske (talk) 12:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

so if i am misinterpreting it, you would be able to explain how? you havent bothered. calling him 'esteemed opponent' just shows your own bias + you are so mad at me you proposed deletion of the ashmead page claiming it was based on dabiq when it was sourced from trinadad newspapers, proving you didnt even read it Ok... So point by point

ISIL claiming "martyrs" (murderers is a better term) is utterly self-serving. ISIL thrives on so called "martyrs". Especially if said murderer is described in glowing terms
The guy was not ISIL (merely one of its deluded followers) and hence a third party
There is great doubt about the authenticity of anything mentioned in Dabiq. The same goes for other simular sources like Der Stürmer.
Your statements were exclusively based on Der Stürmer, sorry Dabiq.
The source is not a "questionable" one, the source is a primary source and a biased or opinionated one at that. Not to be used to support any factual statement, let alone the biased statements you put in. If you think Dabiq is somehow reliable, I invite you to make the case in the appropriate venue. Kleuske (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]