User talk:Wiqi55/2011

Koran vs Qu'ran

Hello, I am writing to say that Koran is the generally accepted English language spellng so I will put this into the article. I will not change the links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmetfahy (talk • contribs) 11:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Qur'an is also considered correct (according to MOS:ISLAM and The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed.), and it's more common in Academic writing. I'd suggest that you first raise the issue at MOS:ISLAM or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam. Give valid reason for why would you want to change it. Then wait for input from others. Wiqixtalk 12:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Muslim

Salaam Bro, I see you are doing a lot of long needed work on the Muslim page, but be careful nafs doesn't cause you to censor anything too @:) barakallah feek.Budo (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Glad that I've helped. Salaam. Wiqixtalk 14:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Dictionary of Scientific Biography

Hi, I noticed a while ago that you (or an editor with a very similar name to you, excuse me if I'm wrong) replaced referenced to the Dictionary of Scientific Biography in the Further reading and External links section by a plain external link to HighBeam electronic version of the Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography (in which I've unfortunately spotted some transcription errors at times). I think this is somewhat unfortunate as sometimes the author/volume/page numbers of the printed article where lost in the process. And also making it harder to use the {{harv}} and {{harvnb}} templates to cite the DSB. Could you consider using the url= of the {{DSB}} or {{citation}} templates instead, or perhaps if you still remember where you replaced the templates fix your past contributions? Cheers, —Ruud 15:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That was me actually, but I only remember doing this a couple of times. I have corrected the ones I could find (all of them, I believe), mostly by moving references to the dead-tree DSB to the further reading section, and retaining the on-line DSB in the external link section. This is not the best solution I can think of, but it should be a bit better for now I guess. I'll look at some of the template-related solutions later. Thanks for the heads up. Wiqixtalk 21:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Abū Kāmil Shujā ibn Aslam

You said:

Restore, but with tags (or another special tag) following each sentence. We can then slowly verify each sentence/statement and either re-phrase to better reflect the cited sources or delete if failed verification. I'm suggesting this approach based on my experience in cleaning Jagged edits in a couple of shorter articles (al-Battani and Abu Kamil)

Looking at Abū Kāmil Shujā ibn Aslam. Did you mean that literally, as Aam has interpreted you (in which case, can you point me at the article history where this occurred, as I can't see it) or did you in some unclear sense mean it metaphorically (in which case could you please amplify your intent)? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I did mean it in a literal sense, especially for long articles. I think using many tags is one way to track progress, warn other editors/readers not to believe anything in heavily tagged paragraph, and ask them to help. In the case of very short articles, I probably didn't think of using tags because I was the only active editor, and, since you can readily read the whole article in a minute, there was no need to track anything. Wiqixtalk 20:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

So, you didn't actually do it then? Because when you wrote I'm suggesting this approach based on my experience in cleaning Jagged edits in a couple of shorter articles it did rather sound as though you were talking of using this method from experience. You're suggesting this as a new mthod, not one you've actually used in practice before? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Not really, I did use this solution in the other article I mentioned, the longer one, Al-Battani, especially for the sentences where I suspected some Jaggedism. Wiqixtalk 21:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I can't find a version of that article where you cn every sentence and then remove them. I ask, because Aam seems to be rather taken with your idea, and is clearly under the impression that you've actually used it. Could you point to the version of Al-Battani which has a cn after every sentence? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Islam

Sorry, but why didn't you slap a warning template on that user's talk page? You could have started with a level-3 warning, given the obscenity of the edit. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'm just new to the vandalism-fighting business and others interfered just in time. I'll make sure to use warnings from now on. Thanks. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 02:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. See, the thing is, often editors go one at a time, 1, 2, 3, 4... and if any instances of vandalism are not 'counted' it could take even longer for disgusting edits like this one to stop. My suggestion is to leave a warning (at least most of the time) but to also make your own judgment about how serious the offense is--see the hierarchy at Wikipedia:WikiProject_user_warnings/Usage_and_layout#Levels. In this case, for instance, you have little reason to assume that level 1 would be appropriate, and (in my opinion) level 3 is appropriate. What I did with this one is that after three of their edits I simply reported them as a vandalism-only account, so I didn't have to wait for a "final warning", but that doesn't always apply (and it doesn't apply to IP editors, for instance, since they don't have accounts). Thanks for helping keeping the place clean, Drmies (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

'Asma' bint Marwan

Hi Wiqi55, thank you for sharing your thoughts on the dispute on 'Asma' bint Marwan's article. I know you've worked on rewriting the articles on Ibn Ishaq and prophetic biography and I was wondering if you could participate in the resolving the dispute on the article's TP ? Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Ibn Ishaq

You added some criticisms about ibn ishaq, right? The ibn ishaq article was very unbalanced against him, to balance it, i added a "praise" section. I am notifying you because i think i may have removed a part from the criticisms section you might have added (citing a secondary source "Encyclopaedia of Islam" about ibn ishaq forging a hadith), this story was not presented well on wikipedia (especially as it came from a secondary source), so i added that incident back but with what earlier sources had to say. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Note, I think most of your edits should be reverted. First, Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri have praised Ibn Ishaq while he was one of his students, i.e., at a very young age. This is not representative of any of his much later works. Second, in the criticism section I have avoided many of the clear-cut and empty accusations (like him being called a liar, i.e., name calling, etc), and I have only written criticisms where a clear argument have been presented. If you have praise that constitute an argument, then we can add it. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you not agree with me that the article is very unbalanced? are you suggesting there should be no praise section to balance it, only a crticism section. why dont you add that az-zhuri praised him when he was one of his students, if that is true, i am not stopping you. but cite your sources. the source i cited states az-zuhri praised ibn ishaq's, maghazi (book of conquests and battles)--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I prefer having the criticism and praise in one section. But do you have any praise where an actual argument have been presented? Most likely you don't. Note also that I'm against adding the "anti-Christ" accusation, as this has been interpreted differently by other historians (actually Malik only called him a liar). Also, your edits have lowered the quality of the article. For instance, Muslim only cited him in his mutaba'aat, not in his Sahih hadith (the same view expressed by Dhahabi, so that is actually not a "praise"). Your edits are now misleading. And ibn Khalkan is not considered an authority on anything (neither hadith not tradition). And Ahmed ibn hanbal praised his efforts in maghazi but never considered him authentic. So you're making many false claims in the article. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

If what your saying is true, then is it so hard to add proof for it and provide sources for it, in the article? --Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, find a praise where an argument have been presented. And remove the name-calling you're adding (like liar, anti-christ, etc). These are name-calling, and not really appropriate for a criticism or praise sections. See the EI2 article for the views of Ahmad b. Hanbal. The views of al-Dhahabi are well-known, and they match the views of most scholars of hadith. If Ibn Ishaq was alone to report something, then it should be disregarded or questioned. But he is still considered OK if others reported the same story. All of this is already in the article. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I see where this is going, i can in vision in the future that we will have to go to the admins to settle this, i only see a dispute in the future in that article. let me know when you decide to revert my edits or remove them. Again, if what you said is true, how hard is it to give proof for it--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The proof is already in the article. The views of al-Dhahabi are referenced; they are representative of most scholars of Hadith. The views of Ibn Hanbal are referenced too. You just need to look at the cited sources first. I don't care if you wish to add praise and name-calling. But the current content is misleading, and it lowers the quality of the article. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 23:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

First i would like to tell you that if you revert my edit on the grounds that it is poor quality, or is a lie, or whatever other argument you come up with, i will revert you. If you really dont want my edit on wikipedia, please open a Wikipedia AN/I case to settle any dispute. As i dont accept the removal of the praise section, which tries to balance the skewed article. Furthermore, i have a strong suspicion that you have been misusing sources e.g the Encylopedia of Islam by Brill. how do you know what this book has to say, i cant find it online or view it--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Your praise section is poor quality because once you look for more details, you will learn that Ahmad b. Hanbal never considered Ibn Ishaq authentic. And Zuhri praised him while he was a young man in Medina. And Muslim only included his Ahadith in Mutab'aat (ie support), etc. So it's full of half truths. And above that, you're removing well-cited content just because you do not have access to sources. That doesn't seem like high quality editing to me. You somehow think that presenting half truths and name calling is a form of "praise" or "criticism". But it isn't. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 23:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I added that ibn ishaq was used for their "legal doctrines" i.e used by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, as source says that. I think problems with this aricle is same as the "Farewell Sermon" article, fake content, please review , it will be good experience, it will teach you that some muslims have made fake quotes about muhammad for apologetic reasons. the sermon in that article has been removed even though it is well known, it was removed because it had NO PRIMARY source and was verified as fake, it was spread around the internet, thats how it became famous. "If you repeat a lie again and again, it will become like truth, but its still a lie", that is what the farewell sermon article suffered from.

I added "additional citations tag" to criticism section. The criticism and praise section are contradictory, my source says Ahmed ibn Hanbal used ibn ishaq for his legal laws i.e fiqh. but criticism section says he didnt ! one must be false. Also, i am very suspicious of your edits, please tell me know how you knew what the Encylopedia of Islam says about ibn ishaq, if the source is not verifiable it must be removed from wikipedia--Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Your source isn't sure. Ibn Khalkan, who is not considered an authority on such matters, wrote "some people say that Ahmed b. Hanbal ...". And your source is a primary source in a language that you do not understand. The translation is also very old (1843!) and most likely not reliable. Besides, you lack any knowledge in Hadith studies, and you lack access to essential sources like EI2, so why are you editing that section of the article to begin with? Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 02:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

ok, i will open ad admin incident because of your revert and accusations, and it doesnt say "some sources say"--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't because your translation is not reliable. Besides, you know nothing of Hadith studies so why are you writing about the subject? And your section doesn't even differentiates between sira and hadith, which makes it all misleading. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 12:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regarding the Ibn Ishaq article --Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Masjid al-Dirar

I have reverted your edit on Demolition of Masjid al-Dirar. You are a very apologetic person, you claimed that they were "perhaps were linked to a group who previously planned to kill the Prophet." this is speculation (that isnt mentioned in the source) and Original Research, and you know it. The source mentions nothing about wanting to kill Muhammad, only expel. You also removed that some people were "possibly" burnt inside, which the source did mention! You also said "Muslim fighters were sent to destroy it or burnt it down", when the primary source says they were sent to burn it down, the type of destruction was burning ! your use of the word "or" is misleading, tabari said they were sent to "destroy AND burnt it" not "destroy or burnt it". This might seem trivial, but from a logic point of view, the words "and" + "or", are very different (if you studied Mathematics of Electronics, you would agree). Finally you reffered to Muhammad as a prophet, which is a violation of MOISLAM (unless i am corrected)--Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The source says they planned an attempt on the Prophet's life, see Tabari, P60, note no. 426. I also removed your exceptional claims (like they "were praying the afternoon prayer") which is not supported by the sources cited. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾

Regarding MOS:ISLAM, using "Prophet Muhammad" is not allowed. But I'm not sure if using "the Prophet" occasionally is not allowed, especially since reliable sources written by non-Muslims (like EI2, academic papers, etc) do use "the Prophet" sometimes for variety (i.e., style purposes). It is also useful if the same paragraph refers to another person with the same name, Muhammad, but this is not the case. I only used it for stylistic purposes. Also, I removed your text from an abridged version of some old book. It is widely accepted by students/scholars of Islamic history that the use of abridged versions is not accurate and not really useful (especially on matters of Fiqh). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 15:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, i will keep your edit, but have changed it to say that it was a suggestion by Isma'il Qurban Husayn, i wrote

Isma'il Qurban Husayn (translator of Tabari, Volume 9, Last years of the prophet) said in footnote 426, that the people were "probably" linked to those who wanted to kill Muhammad in the Battle of Tabuk, but Tabari himself did not mention this

. You also removed that some people were supposedly burnt inside, i have added that back. I will also add back the secondary source "Za'ad al Ma'ad", but claim it is an abridged edited version. Oh yeh, maybe you think i am wrong to claim it was the view of Isma'il Qurban Husayn, that those footnotes were added by Tabari himself. As proof that they were not, see footnote 434 and 435, they mention modern sources, tabari wasn't alive then. That is proof that the footnotes were not added by Tabari, but by Qurban Husayn --Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Apology

Sorry about reverting your latest edits, i had thought you had reverted it to the last version by Andalusi. I had made some fixes to the article, relating to incorrect sources and wording. Its only later i realised that u did not revert the stuff i fixed (with the refs)--Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad's wives

My edit to this page is necessary. 9 and 11 year-old females are girls and it is not encyclopaedic to describe them as women. Your claim that 'Some muslims hold a different view' is irrelevant as the page isn't written exclusively for muslims, nor is it written from a muslim perspective - it should be impartial and accurate. Obscurasky (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The article isn't about "the wives of Muhammad at the age of marriage", but it's a general article that encompasses events that mostly happened later in their lives. Using the term girl is misleading and suggests that they have died young, which is not the case. And there was only one "girl", so I'm not sure why are you using the plural "girls". There are also additional concerns with regards the age of Aisha (which is disputed) and whether the word "girl" accurately represents the status of a 9/10-year-old in pre-Islamic Arab societies. I think your change should be reverted for the reasons given above, all of which have nothing to do with articles being written for Muslims. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 15:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not correct to refer to a 9-year-old as a woman. My edit corrects this - it does not imply she died young, and it certainly has no effect whatsoever on the subject of the article. And again, the article is not written from the perspective of pre-Islamic societies - so what they considered to be a girl/woman, has no bearing here. I would also point out that the Aisha page repeatedly refers to her as a girl, not a woman.

I do accept your point that there was only one girl and the solution here would seem to be to find a form of words that we can both agree upon. Obscurasky (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, we're not referring to a perpetual 9-year-old. Aisha could have been a "girl" at the start of her marriage, but she remained a "wife of the prophet" for the rest of her life. Moreover, calling her a "girl" is not a good summary of the article's content, which includes information about her later years, for instance, as a widow. Also on wikipedia it is not customary to include disputed information in the lead without giving counter points of view. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 21:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Obscurasky is right...one cannot refer to a 9 year old as a "woman", it is incorrect and misleading, since it implies that Muhammad never took a child bride. In fact, there is almost no "dispute" about this information at all; almost everyone acknowledges that he did. By all historical accounts she was 9 when he consumated the marriage, so it must be clearly shown that at least one wife was not a woman but a girl when they married. Regarding the issue of the "s" in "girls", it can be stated as "...10 or 12 women and 1 girl..." if you prefer, but that syntax seems awkward. Doc Tropics 21:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Doc Tropics claims: "By all historical accounts she was 9 when he consumated the marriage". That doesn't seem right. The article itself claims that Tabari thought she was ten (so there at least some ambiguity here, even in the earliest of sources). And some people do dispute the early marriage claim. You don't have to agree with them; I don't. But we can't hide the views/opinions/theories of notable scholars just because we don't like them. The old lead doesn't claim anything about how old each wife was at the start of the marriage, so I don't see what's the problem here. As an alternative, maybe we could use females, spouses, or some other neutral term. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers

Great work adding all those references to the Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers! Cheers, —Ruud 13:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Kudos to Springer, et el., for making them available. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 17:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment

I have to advise you not to edit Al-Farabi again today - it doesn't matter if an editor is right or wrong, 3RR applies. This is a friendly but serious warning. Dougweller (talk) 11:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Mentioned you

Just a courtesy note. I mentioned you here --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Help?

Hey Wiqi55, if you haven't, could you check out this[1] (bottom of the section, last few posts) and perhaps help me find suitable images? Oddly, when I did a search on Google (including the word flame), most of the pictures (all of the ones of the correct Muhammad) were "face shown, no flame, no veil" images. There are concerns about finding free use ones or ones suitable for a fair use claim. I'd definitely be supportive of removing one of the two images that seem to share the same artistic style and replace it with one such as Tivanir notes is missing (flame, veil, etc). You seem far better at digging up such things with proper information than most of the rest of us, thus I turn to you with this plea for help. The images should at least be properly balanced, and no portrayals of a "no face shown" Muhammad brings the article's visual representations horrendously out of balance (at least IMHO). Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Robert. I'm afraid I'm no good at finding images. One thing to note though is that the veil was a common feature even for images that do not depict the Prophet. Members of his family and a number of Sufi masters sometimes were depicted with veiled faces. In fact, I've seen websites confuse images of Muhammad al-Mahdi with that of the Prophet because of the veil. Concerning the flame, I've checked a source and the only example given is the Hamla i-Haydari. Hope this helps somehow. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 03:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Salaam Wiqi55. Note discussion over at Jimbo's talk (just in case you weren't aware of it). I think it's probably run its course by now, but I'd be interested in your thoughts. Best, --JN466 10:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• WaSalaam, Jayen. I went through that discussion briefly and it does seem to have ended. The issue of images being offensive does not concern me much, but I'm more concerned by what information is conveyed by these images and the general impression one gets from the article. But reading through that discussion, I think there seems to be a growing consensus for reducing the number of depictions at Muhammad. This sounds reasonable to me and I'd probably go for 3 images, 1 veil, 1 flame, and 1 face. This seems like the best compromise and both sides will have to give something. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 18:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree; this is probably the best way to go. I have tracked down a fuller version of the hadith Gruber was quoting from (see hilya talk) and made some changes to the article per your comment; please review. Best wishes, --JN466 08:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Can I ask your opinion about this? Talk:Muhammad/images#Black_stone_image --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for WP:OWN, WP:EW, WP:DISRUPT - your previous block just expired, and you have returned to exactly the same behaviour that led to it. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Bwilkins, I have understood your early points. But it's hard to seek consensus when I'm the only one talking. The other editors for awhile now refuse to talk. Nevertheless, I did not go above 2 reverts this time. Once I was reverted (usually a blanket revert with bad faith accusations and without referring to content policies), I posted this[2] and continued to make other mundane edits. Once another edit of mine got reverted I posted [3] and did not revert that edit. That's hardly edit warring, especially while other editors are disrupting consensus building by not talking. I have also asked for page protection to force such editors to come to talk per your suggestion.[4] I may submit an unblock request, but I'm not sure what admins think of WP:TAGTEAM, WP:NINJA, etc. Also, none of my edits were controversial; all of which were inline with WP:NPOV and accurately reflect the wording used in reliable sources (already cited and quoted). Best. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 19:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wiqi, EW is a little different than 3RR. I think it's time we post on WikiProjects Islam to get more help for you and Penom. I can work with you and Penom here if you would like, for wording for such a request. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Robert. I wouldn't call my actions disruptive or edit warring since to quote WP:BRD, "The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD." That was me, and twice so. Also, it is rather impractical to have a self-imposed 1rr while others refuse to talk. I don't mind Penom; at least he did talk for a bit until the tag team showed up. The same tag team are also involved in other articles, like Al-Farabi (on certain issues, I admit), and using the same terse commenting and non-justifications. Apparently, their whole purpose is to freeze articles in a biased and sorry state. I'm also surprised in being accused of WP:OWN even though I've been very flexible. I just think it's hard to be flexible with blanket reverts and no talk. PS. I sometimes pose as an expert on WikiProject Islam ;-) Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 21:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

is rather impractical to have a self-imposed 1rr while others refuse to talk - you're wrong. It is entirely practical. And if you want to be unblocked, you need to rethink a bit. none of my edits were controversial - sounds implausible. Were any of them reverted? If so, they were controversial William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess you're right about the controversial issue, although I would expect that other editors to at least explain how an edit is controversial. But you or others may want to elaborate a bit on the 1rr point, though. To keep reverting without talking rather kills any chance of consensus. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It makes it much harder. But other people probably watch these pages; or there are project pages you could add discussions too. Yes, it is much harder from you. But the point (as I understand it; I've not looked at the history carefully) is that you've been under close scrutiny and need to be super-careful; you've just gone on as thought that wasn't so. And (perhaps pushing your patience at a difficult time) wiki-lawyering about BRD isn't going to help your case either William M. Connolley (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

But other people are not watching Abdullah ibn Saba. I'm being accused of disruptive behavior even though I'm the only one implementing content policies there (with minor contributions by DGG). To give you an example of what type of edits I was reverting, here is an edit made hours ago (after my block).[5] Notice that it silently replaced a cited source with a "citation needed" template! I've reverting this type of subtle vandalism until it got me into 3rr. It should also be obvious that when dealing with a tag team that refuses to talk or justify their edits in summaries, 1-2 reverts are expected. What is unexpected is for one admin to unilaterally impose a 1rr against me without bothering to tell me about it. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 17:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, that edit looks dubious. But reverting this type of subtle vandalism until it got me into 3rr - no, that won't fly. You've been around, you know it won't. How can you expect any chance of being unblocked if you can say stuff like that as though it was right? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why I have changed my behavior after the first block. I have avoided making more than 1-2 reverts, started a discussion in talk, and asked for a page protection. It would have been much wiser for the admin to just wait until the page is protected and the tag team are forced into discussion. Instead, the admin chose to indefinitely block me. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 18:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You reverted 6 times last time(see my note below). regarding my last edit, I was trying to restore deleted sentences by you, removal of that "citation needed" was unintentional", I had not seen that. Penom (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

We had a long problem with Wiqi, who falsified and misrepresented sources to push his view. He has no understanding of WIkipedia. He think he should be chief editor in Islamic articles (maybe because he is Muslim and we are not) and he should approve what other editors write. All his statement above is wrong. He reverts without any discussion, and when we tried to explained article issues, he just reverted by this edit summary that "No reason is given". This made me mad, because, there are long discussion for every issues (Just see the talk page). Or, he does controversial edits with this edit summary "disagree, discuss..." He thinks he is above everybody. He should do edit and if we do not agree we should beg him to change his edits. Just look at the talk page to see this pattern. Please look how many times, he has broken 3rr (oooooops, more than 7 times in 3 weeks), he was reported for 3rr 5 times.

In last time , minutes after he got unblocked he started reverting all previous edits and at the same time reported for page protection, hoping that article might have get protected on his revision. 3 other editors disagreed his controvesial edits but he reverted 6 times in Ibn Saba. I should add that he started another editwarring at the same time with other editors in Al-FarabiPenom (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This stream of unsubstantiated claims and personal attacks doesn't help. You're supposed to collaborate with others and discuss content. I also had no idea which version will be protected, and I merely reverted the lead (twice only) per DGG's comment. The rest of my edits were given clear justification in the summary and were mostly copyediting and WP:NPOV. To see one clear example of the quality of Penom's edits just see how he replaced a cited sources with a citation needed tag. [6] Or how he removed a source he didn't like claiming that it was outdated even though there are many sources from before 1920 that he himself added to the article. [7] Any editor familiar with wiki policy would have reverted your edits. Again, the whole point of this tag team is to ignore wiki policies and avoid discussing content and resort to personal attacks. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 19:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Mischaracterizing your disruptive edit pattern is not a solution. As other editors warned you several times. You should learn that you are not chief editor in articles. You should learn that you should not falsify sources. You should not do edit warring. Have you counted the number of times that you broke 3rr? You should learn to hear what other editors saying. Seriously, you are a clear example of WP:HEAR. Editors who commented in articles (DGG, Robert ) was invited by me to join the disscution. What you have done except reverting and reverting and reverting.Penom (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I've seen no credible accusations of falsification of sources. If you want to make such allegations, please present clear evidence William M. Connolley (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

These accusations by Penom only started after I discovered that some of the sources he added to the article did not support the claims being made. Here is an example [8]. This is a recurrent problem. Whenever I find a violation of wiki policies and bring it to his attention in good faith, he levels the same accusation against me but with much hyperbole and little evidence. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 23:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Just some examples [9], [[10]], [11], [12], [13] --Penom (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

None of these are examples of "falsifying sources". Take this [14] for instance. That sentence was removed per WP:DUE before we got a chance to discuss the "some" vs "one" issue. But using "some" was more accurate as we already have another paper discussing a second work (see the further reading section). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 12:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Wiqi55, you need to rethink and reconsider your own combative behavior, instead of accusing others. Penom and I have completely different interests and taste in articles and topics, I have interacted with him no more than two or three times on the two or three Wikipedia articles in the past 4 years that I've been here. Judging by his name, he is apparently Jewish, while I'm Kurdish. Not that any of that matters here in Wikipedia, but I'm just pointing these facts out, because you apparently believe that he and I are involved in a conspiracy against you or something. My problem with your edits is your strong POV, I have no vendetta against you personally. On Farabi for example, where Penom has no involvement by the way, you tried to put dubious tags in front of well-sourced statements that you did not like, questing academic sources. [15] How editorial can an editor get, to think that he or she actually knows more about the topic than the academic secondary source cited? This sumps up the problem with your edits. I don't know who you are in real life, but I'm guessing you're a very opinionated writer and you think Wikipedia is your blog or book where your opinions should be regarded as facts. But that's not how it works here. You need to change this "looking down, from the above" approach you have with the other editors. Kurdo777 (talk) 03:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hardly combative, since I'm the one doing most of the talking while you keep reverting. I also don't resort to personal attacks or refer to people's ethnic or religious affiliation. Concerning the dubious tags on Farabi, I have agreed to take the issue to WP:RSN per Dougweller suggestion. See also User:FormerIP/So_you_think_a_source_is_wrong?. It is rather common to find clear-cut errors in seemingly reliable (but usually non-specialist) sources. The other issue concerning Farabi was a claim that "other historians" have "criticized" Ibn Khallikan. However, only Dimitri Gutas was mentioned. And the article still says Turkic :-) Using more accurate wording and verifying sources is what we are supposed to do on wikipedia. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 12:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The key is not to personally deem a source as non-expert or invalid. The key is to find other experts who deem such. In addition, if there's a dispute (among the experts), then due weight needs to be given to both. If every other expert (say experts 2-10) discounts what expert 1 is saying and there's no justification to consider expert 1 an expert in the field, that's different. Regardless, BRD is not BRRRRD or BRRD or BR-lets-make-an-edit-that-also-slips-in-a-revert-D. That seems to be happening on both sides.

Now, to the issue at hand, sorry I haven't been around. I've got only a few minutes today, so I can't help today either. One of our customers contracted us out for an emergency situation which will be keeping me busy through the weekend. I would strongly suggest going to Wikiproject Islam to recruit more help. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Wiqi55 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I believe this block is no longer necessary. I've done some more reading of wp:edit warring and wp:tag team. I now have a better understanding of edit warring vs 3rr, and how to deal with editors who refuse to talk. I also followed BWilkins advice before the second block and asked for page protection.[18] In short, I've learned my lesson with regards to edit warring, and I see no reason why my efforts should be deemed disruptive (given that I avoid edit warring in the future). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiqi55 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Accepted with the follow understanding:

1. Wiqi55 has agreed[16] to a voluntary 6-month WP:1RR restriction - 7 Jun 2012 expiry.
2. Warnings or topic bans will be given for any violation of 1RR or report of a 1RR violation.
3. Any 1RR violation after warning can result in a reinstatement of the indefinite block. WGFinley (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Though I'm not planning to handle the unblock request at this time, I did ask the blocking admin (Bwilkins) what his opinion was. You can see his answer at User talk:Bwilkins#User talk:Wiqi55 requesting unblock. His suggestion was "I might be willing to unblock with a minimum 6 month 1RR restriction ... and any further incidents of what appears to be WP:OWN would be met with a swift reblock. Maybe restrict him away from certain articles that have been the cause of his issues?" EdJohnston (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, 1RR for 6 months sounds OK to me. Best, Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 15:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

What about the rest of it? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Ed - 1RR sounds fine, but editing restriction enforcement is something we'd need a community ban for. Personally, I don't think this case requires one - after all, Wiqi has stated that they will not do the same thing again. m.o.p 20:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hold

Will put this on hold and request Bwilkins for input on a 1RR probation. --WGFinley (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I am fully in favour of the 1RR for minimum 6 months (as originally noted). Although we can implement topic bans without AN/ANI, my best advice to Wiqi55 is to self-impose one - especially if things start to spiral out of control. You should recognize that this unblock request has remained unanswered for some time - some people clearly are reticent to release you back on the Wikipopulace. There are people who are about to put some faith in you: don't let them down (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion for a novelty: people are often reluctant to accede to unblocks, because they can require much fuss to re-impose. And topic-bans can be painful, both because it cuts them off from their area of expertise, and because they can be gamed by their opponents. How about granting a 1-week unblock, after which the block will be automatically reimposed (without prejudice) and W's editing during that period considered. That gives W a chance to be good, but doesn't let him out without further review William M. Connolley (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Novel Idea WMC, I might keep that one in mind for future ones. In this case, as Wiqi55 has already agreed to 6 months 1RR we will go with that. --WGFinley (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Provisiional Unblock

I will unblock you as outlined above Wiqi55 after you acknowledge the terms as I've outlined them. --WGFinley (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I agree to the terms. But shouldn't the expiry date be given as 2012? Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 19:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Block lifted, don't disappoint. --WGFinley (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

2nd opinion sought

Was hoping to get the opinion of a Muslim on this topic; I just noticed in the article End time there is a lengthy list titled "Minor signs" under Sunni Islam. The list is unsourced; a few cursory searches resulted in similar lists, but none at any sites that appeared to be very scholarly. Thoughts? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)