Edit warring on Aisha
Do not continue to add that challenged material back into Aisha while discussion is underway, it is highly unproductive. Because of your pattern of edit warring I have protected the page.--Cúchullain t/c 13:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Please be aware that I have been one of those advocating unprotection of Aisha. You may not be aware of it, but there has been quite some discussion about this. The bottomline is that unprotection of this article means that if problems arise, they will be settled by blocking the user who makes them. Therefore I advice you to be cautious in your edits. I say this without making any accusations whatsoever, just as a word of caution.
I have had a look at your recent edits to Aisha, and have noticed that most of them have been reverted. I personally agree with the reasons mentioned by the reverting editors in the edit-summaries. Please study those. Debresser (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks.I would like to tell you what my view is.
According to wikipedia newespaper citations can not be used to edit articles regarding history and I agree.I am using the newspaper article not to edit history but under the section Scholarly view.(P.S Opinion of scholars are considered of extreme importance in Islam.)
Regarding Maria al Qibtah http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=4579&CATE=1 There is a difference in opinion whether she married the Prophet or not and only the negative opinion is being highlighted in the section Story of the honey (For more info on Shaykh Abdurrahman please see http://www.whitethreadpress.com/authors/shaykh_abdurrahman.htm )
So either both opinions should be mentioned or the disputed opinion should be removed.
Opinion of sholars
Adil Salahi teaches Islamic Studies at the Markfield Institute of Higher Education, Leicester, England. After working for the BBC Arabic Service for several years, he worked for the Arabic daily, Al-Sharq Al-Awsat. He continues to publish a column, "Islam in Perspective", in its sister publication, Arab News, an English daily published in Saudi Arabia.
He has produced an English translation of several volumes of Sayyid Qutb's commentary, In the Shade of the Quran (Leicester, Islamic Foundation), as well as several other books on Islamic subjects.
But acceptability of his views in general forums is not clear furthermore using him as source on Wikipedia may not be wise especially on the article where you intend to use it. I have been monitoring those set of articles for quiet some time. If you want to quote him anyway first do research on him and be prepared for tedious edit-war and talk-war.
Best of luck! Was'salam.
- The reversions are as per standards correct, you don't have a strong case as you are unable to provide legitimacy/acceptability of Adil Salahi. Although I know that Aisha's age was something between 14-17 at the time of marriage I can't help you as I don't have access to any source which is acceptable as per WP standards. In fact I cautioned you previously about probable consequences of your drive. Only thing you can do is, start a talk section on this issue, which you have done, I'll try to participate in the talk but can't guarentee my support as I'll support only just, rationale & logical aspect.
You've been told again and again why your edits are not acceptable. Do not add challenged material back into the article again or you will be blocked from editing.--Cúchullain t/c 14:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Conflict of interest/non-neutrality/content dispute — Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions (like obvious vandalism) where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools. Personal attacks are not allowed.It would be better if you voluntarily step down.
- As to your comments to various other editors, please see WP:CANVASS: "To avoid disrupting the consensus building process on Wikipedia, editors should keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and not preselect recipients according to their established opinions." Please cease.--Cúchullain t/c 13:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
You've been warned about canvassing before, and now you're doing it again. This is a clear attempt to alter the consensus developing on the talk page. This is extremely inappropriate.--Cúchullain t/c 14:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've made a note at the Administrators' incident noticeboard about this issue.--Cúchullain t/c 15:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- As I have already told you I was following this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam/Expert_Wikipedians_in_Islamic_issues
--Gnosisquest (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
You threatened to use your powers here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aisha&diff=297554523&oldid=296281947 and here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gnosisquest&diff=297553657&oldid=295928325 The opinion meets the requirements of Wikipedia yet you do not allow me to add it and are resorting to threats.
- Revert warring is extremely disruptive behavior, and as the page says, "Disruptive editors may be blocked or banned indefinitely." Simply pointing that out is not a threat, it's a citation of our policies and guidelines. I never used my powers, nor would I ever use them while I was involved in a dispute. But regardless of how right you think you are, revert warring and tendentious editing is never appropriate behavior.--Cúchullain t/c 17:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Stop adding synthesized text to this article. By stating "There are sources from which it can be concluded" in the text, you are adding information that is not directly stated in the source. Wikipedia does not allow for original research like that; we can only repeat what has been stated in sources, or is otherwise verifiable. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well instead of deleting it you could have helped by adding a neutral statement conforming with NPOV.--Gnosisquest (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Stop adding this . Do it even once more (without a very clear consensus on the talk page) and I'll block you. I would have done so already except I'm interpreting  as a promise not to re-add the disputed text William M. Connolley (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)