Archives

I

On 8 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kharijites, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Kharijites were the first sect to arise in Islam? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kharijites. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Kharijites), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sorry to bother whether you like reading in the Encyclopaedia of Islam. if he does how to login. whether to use email or not? thank you Iylaq (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Iylaq: Hello. If you are interested in the second edition, then you can just download pdf from various websites, including web archive (https://archive.org/). If you are interested in EI3, you will have to register on Brill online. It also costs money (ca. 15 dollars for 24 hour access with unlimited downloads), although 1 published volume of EI3 you can also find on web archive. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 12:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sorry to bother you, but i wanted to know, why are you reverting back my edits on the Article Muktar Al Saqafi despite of the fact it is sourced from a reputed site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahdi Varteji (talk • contribs) 07:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahdi Varteji: Your edit was reverted because it is not allowed to copy-paste material from other sources however reliable. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for Yazid I, about the "second caliph of the Umayyad Caliphate, ruling from April 680 to November 683. The first person in Islamic history to benefit from hereditary succession, his reign was marred by opposition from the representatives of the old Islamic elite. His efforts to impose his authority resulted in the death of Muhammad's grandson Husayn, as well as attacks on the cities of Medina and Mecca. These disasters have earned him the reputation of evil among many Muslims."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you Gerda :) --AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 11:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AhmadLX sorry to disturb I want to ask if historians did not mention that Mus'ab ibn al-Zubayr belonged to the Tabi'un group? thank you Iylaq (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Iylaq. He was one, but I haven't seen a source explicitly saying that. --AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 10:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

question for you about your delete of my edit. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly explain before removing a valid edit with verified sources and not on whims and desires, provide citations for your claims of biased reviewers before unethically removing edits. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by VerifiedFactCheck (talk • contribs) 14:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VerifiedFactCheck:I have explained it in the edit summary, but if it wasn't enough, I will explain it again. Wikipedia is written based on reliable, third-party sources published by reputable publishers. In that preference is given to academic sources published by experts on the subjects who do and publish their research in journal/reviewed books, if these exist. In the case of Kharijites, their is abundance of academic sources so we don't need any sources from non-academic side. Moreover, the source you added is basically a fatwa by a religious cleric, who has limited comprehension of history, limited analytical skills (as compared to the historians) and is prejudiced against Kharijites (all clerics are prejudiced against all sects except their own). This is the worst possible source to be added to the article. Right after posting this message, you reverted my edit. I encourage you to revert yourself. Else, you will be reported to admins for proper action. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly read this for the wikipedia page on reliable sources: When editors talk about a sources that are being cited on Wikipedia, they might be referring to any one of these three concepts:

   The piece of work itself (the article, book)
   The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
   The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

The source is an academic and not a religious cleric even authorized to give fatawa and it's clear you are biased against the source from your rhetoric.

It is sufficient to say that the source satisfied all these points. However, it went against your opinion as is clear from your talk page. Thus, quite unethical on your part to repeatedly revert the edit. Anyway good day to you. End discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by VerifiedFactCheck (talk • contribs) 14:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VerifiedFactCheck: Is that so? Then kindly tell me about his academic credentials, which University he went to, what degree does he hold, what was the academic discipline, who was his supervisor, in which publication has the material appeared that you added to the article, and who was the publisher of that publication. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive: This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Shah Abdul Latif Bhittai you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 10:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Shah Abdul Latif Bhittai you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Shah Abdul Latif Bhittai for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 10:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Shah Abdul Latif Bhittai you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Shah Abdul Latif Bhittai for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, why did you reverse my edit? I deleted the article without source and added two articles with source. I am waiting for your response. M.Nadian (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Nadian: The information you removed was sourced, which can be verified down below in the relevant section (see Aftermath). Nothing is unreferenced in the article. The information you added (88 dead → unknown) was unreferenced. You didn't provide two sources, you provided 0. If you plan to bring sources like Lahoof or hadith fictions from Bukhari etc, know that these are not acceptable sources (see WP:RS to know why). AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this is not true. See Arabic and Persian translations of this page. So far, I have not seen any document that writes the number of killed Yazid Corps. If you have a valid document, add it with the document. The number of Shamar Corps is only the lowest amount written without the highest amount being the most famous. Those two books are two authentic historical books.M.Nadian (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are relying on primary non-RS material. Ibn Atham Kufi and Shaikh Sadooq are embelished accounts of the event. Wikipedia uses sources written by modern specialists (think of University professors) who do research and publish their articles in journals and books with reputable publishers. We use primary sources extremely rarely, when a secondary source doesn't have some sort of information. The size of the Kufan army at Karbala is a settled question. All secondary RS on the subject state 4000. I know it is hard to accept for you, because you've only listened to religious clerics so far; the only thing they are good at is rhetoric and embellishment. Whether you like it or not, Wikipedia doesn't go with clerics, primary sources, and low quality information wherever it may come from. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

300 people narrated this incident and all the documents should be considered together. You are completely wrong. The only people who blocked the water were 4,000. Some have written Yazid Corps by 200,000 people. The number of people killed by the Levant Army may not be 88. M.Nadian (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should argue about this with historians and convince them that Yazid's army was half a million or whatever you think. You will need to publish your research in a journal or a book. Not Wikipedia. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This research is not historical documents. Do not teach me Wikipedia, I know. I think it is better to enter a third person. M.Nadian (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wrote this wrong, these are historical documents. M.Nadian (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From your actions so far, it is clear that you know nothing about Wikipedia. Continuation of edit warring and refusing to understand policies will get you blocked soon. Now, please stop posting your messages here. Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your action has problems, thanks, last message. M.Nadian (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't speak well to you, and you didn't well treat whit me either.During this two-day opportunity, I spoke with some of the old people of the fa Wikipedia, and we have a suggestion to end this discussion.

In all articles, the minority of the individuals is also written and is written alongside each minimum numbers write maximum numbers. and this is Wikipedia law. The number of 30,000 people in the book of the Encyclopedia of Imam Hussein, whose writer is approved by the Encyclopaedia Islamica and in nafas almahmum (in which the defects of the book Lahouf are removed and some are added), both books less than 70 years of writings. The Comprehensive an Persian academic website has an article on this subject, which also mentions this number. Next to the number 88 people, number 250 people should be added, which is the maximum amount.  This can slove the difference between fa & ar Wikipedia With en Wikipedia.

Please accept this.

Please post this on the article talk page. I will respond there. Thanks.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AhmadLX: I did look at both pages WP:RS and WP:Primary. There doesn't seem to be any rule against using published primary sources: "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." Is there something I missed on these pages? The material I used is highly reputable and accessible to all. Unless there is a rule (and not a preference) against using primary rule, what you did was unjustified and I'm going to reverse it.

Reputably published yes. An example would be History of Tabari published by SUNY Press. Not Bukhari, Nahj al-Balagha, Sunan Nisai and some 50 other sources you have added. Moreover, when secondary sources are available, of which there is plenty on this topic, primary sources are not to be used. I have started discussion on the article talk page. Please discuss there.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gerda :) --AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ahmad. Thank you for your new comments in Ali's talk page. Do you know where I can download the books you introduced there? Ghazaalch (talk) 07:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghazaalch: Hinds' articles you can find on publishers' websites (Kufan Political Alignments, Siffin Arbitration Agreement) or on JSTOR. If you can't access them there, there is a famous website to download papers for free ;) Wellhausen's Religio-political opposition parties is available on Web-archive in original language here. An unofficial translation of it can be found here (read its foreword carefully if you decide to use it, and cite the original German). Kenney's book can be downloaded from a famous website (you should find it yourself;)). If none of these work, drop me an email and I will send you the copies. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ahmad. Here is my email: Ghazaalch (talk) 06:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghazaalch: I think I will just point you to these Wikipedia articles. All of the above, except for Wellhausen, can be found using these. I don't have the published translation of it, and I use the web-archive translation (linked above). AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ahmad. They were found except for THE SIFFIN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT.Ghazaalch (talk) 05:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, AhmadLX! The article you nominated, Mu'awiya I, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the Mu'awiya I article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 12, 2022. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 12, 2022, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive: On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage.
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Battle of Kufa and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 17#Battle of Kufa until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I said people who aren't wikiproject coordinators shouldn't just "arbitrarily" dick about with the ratings. Potentially a huge waste of people's time, theirs and yours. Hardly constructive. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323: You should read what article importance means on Wikiproject's assessment page. This is not arbitrary and this is not dicking. Dicking is when you revert things you have no clue about. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, AhmadLX! The article you nominated, Kharijites, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AhmadLX, you took over this review and did good work on it, but you haven't been editing on Wikipedia for a few weeks, and haven't been back to the review in over a month. Should we move on to a new reviewer, or will you be returning to it? Since there is a GAN backlog drive going on at the moment, if you won't be returning, now would be a good time to request a new reviewer. If I haven't heard from you in the next seven days, I'll assume that you've had to abandon the review, and will call for a new reviewer. I hope all is well with you. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: Thanks for reaching out. I'm good. I think looking for a new reviewer would be the best course of action right now. Currently I'm not in a position to be actively editing due to time issues. Regards. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 18 August 2022. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 18, 2022, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/August 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hello, AhmadLX! i just wanted to thank you for this edit to the blurb. from the article lead, i had been unsure if the motto was the motto of the kharijites, or simply one of their mottos, and i had not wanted to presume the former as i had noticed that the article on the muhakkima had appeared to provide a longer version of the motto. i am glad that you had noticed the caption and were able to tweak it appropriately. dying (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Dying:. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August songs

Thank you today for the article, introduced: "Being Top Importance in WikiProjects Religion and Islam, this article is about the first Islamic sect. The sect appeared during the First Muslim Civil War in late 650s when a group from the army of the fourth caliph Ali seceded protesting against the proposal to settle the dispute with his opponent, the Syrian governor Mu'awiya, through dialogue. They weakened Ali's authority in his home base who then proceeded to defeat them. One of the survivors killed him in retaliation thus inadvertently assisting Mu'awiya's rise to the caliphate. They vigorously fought the subsequent governments labeling them unjust. The governments on their part severely suppressed them, which eventually caused their disappearance, except for one of their non-violent sect, the Ibadiyya, who survive to this day."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Gerda Arendt:. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! Congratulations on getting the article about the Kharijites featured! You've done a lot of good work there and I hope you're proud of what you (and others) have accomplished. All the best for your future endeavours. :D -- Grnrchst (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Grnrchst:. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

bro you cant get shah latifs sect from sources you need to ask elders and mureed to murshid conversation my family was murids of Ahmad Sirhindi and then we became Murids of Shah Saeen in Matiari he was of Qadiri silsila which is sunni sufi, u need to get these questions from your murshid SindhiRajparJatt (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SindhiRajparJatt: Here at Wikipedia we follow reliable sources published by academics or recognized authorities on the subject. If something is not found in the RS, it is left out. You should consult EI3 entry on Latif (listed in bibliography) to see how much do we actually know about him and how much is hearsay.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

bhittaipedia itself states at the very end he was a sunni with the better traits of a shiah ... SindhiRajparJatt (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you are not speaking with adab on shah bhittai saeens name "even if the dead man shouted from his grave (in referral to shah saeen)" speak with adab on this waliullah SindhiRajparJatt (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SindhiRajparJatt: We edit articles at Wikipedia from a neutral point of view and without bias; that means we do not show reverence for a subject, and we do not show contempt for a subject. What I wrote was neither respectful nor disrespectful. Instead of whining about this, you should try to understand that editing Wikipedia articles requires adherence to Wikipedia policies, especially Neutral Point Of View, Verifiability and Reliable Sourcing. As long as your contributions violate these, other editors will reverse your changes. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad, The image Shah Abdul Latif Bhittai.jpg, I added to the wikipedia page repeatedly. Nevertheless, you said the image is not licensed. Whatsoever I checked from flickr, the image is licensed. What is the problem here I don’t know. I want you to review image and guide me what to do, so we can add the image to Shah Abdul Latif Bhittai page. Later3839 (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Later3839: Hi, if you think the file is appropriately licensed, please check Commons policy on flickr. Also see this related page. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you were a Good article reviewer on at least one article that is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 or you signed up for messages. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of Good articles for copyright and other problems, unless a reviewer opens an independent Good article reassessment and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information. A list of the GA reviewers can be found here. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. You can opt in or out of further messages at this page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Uthmaniyya, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Uthmaniyya, the partisans of Uthman, the third Muslim caliph, killed his assassin Kinana ibn Bishr in the First Muslim Civil War? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Uthmaniyya. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Uthmaniyya), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Salam. I uploaded this file but I have problems with its description. A lot of websites write that its author is Nasuh Al-Matrakî. I don't know who he was. At first I thought it meant Matrakçı Nasuh. But he died long before 1600. Or maybe it was him, so the map is not from 1600. I want to ask you for help, as a user who knows the Arab East well. Sincerely. Smpad (talk) 10:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Urwa ibn al-Zubayr you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Urwa ibn al-Zubayr you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Urwa ibn al-Zubayr and Talk:Urwa ibn al-Zubayr/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Urwa ibn al-Zubayr you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Urwa ibn al-Zubayr for comments about the article, and Talk:Urwa ibn al-Zubayr/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am not the nominator, but I saw your response.

• "replacement for the F-111 Aardvark" - this is covered in the Enhanced Tactical Fighter competition section of the page (now with Piccirillo p.149 citation)
• Earwigs detection - not sure what I'm meant to see from this, but it says "Violation Unlikely 11.5%" and mostly picks up on key words and phrases like "high speed civil transport".
• "...prototypes were shelved..." - I think [2] would be sufficient as a lead citation, but this is covered in the Piccirillo source, p.169 (shelving) and p.183+ (transfer to NASA, which it notes technically was early 1989)
• "Both aircraft were fully retired in 2009 and stored at Edwards Air Force Base." - "Both" because there were only 2 examples of this aircraft. The source in the lead is just a list, but their retirement is covered in the same source, p.281 (ch.11) which is cited later.
• Fuselage vs airframe - I think "fuselage" and "airframe" are mostly interchangeable, but "Fuselage" is more appropriate in this case

Please let me know if there is a better place to respond to your concerns. Thanks, HarryKernow (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copied to the article talk page and responded there. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 June 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Urwa ibn al-Zubayr, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Urwa ibn al-Zubayr has been called the founder of Islamic historiography? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Urwa ibn al-Zubayr. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Urwa ibn al-Zubayr), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned earlier, we can address any words that do not adhere to NPOV. However, the core content is essential.

Regarding the sources, there are numerous related pages that support the same information. So, I am not misrepresenting the sources. StarkReport (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@StarkReport: Regarding your first point: it is your responsibility to make your content POV-free. It cannot happen that you put gross POV and then discuss what should be done to make it NPOV. Make it NPOV in your sandbox or word document and then insert it here. Regarding your misrepresentation of the sources:

• Does Halm 1997 says that Husayn's caravan was blocked through treachery?
• Which of the 3 cited sources say that Ashura means 10th?
• Which of the sources say that Yazid's rule was tyrannical?
• Which one says that Husayn "stood for justice and righteousness"?
• Ditto on "humiliation and hardship"

AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The term "treacherous actions" is a general description of the events that led to Imam Husayn's halt at Karbala, but it doesn't specifically point to individual actors. However, some key figures and groups involved in the events leading to Karbala include:

Umar ibn Sa'ad: He was the commander of Yazid's forces during the Battle of Karbala. He played a significant role in leading the Umayyad army against Imam Husayn and his followers.

Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad: He was the governor of Kufa under the Umayyad caliph Yazid. He sent Umar ibn Sa'ad to confront and intercept Imam Husayn's party, contributing to the events at Karbala.

Yazid I: He was the Umayyad caliph at the time and the son of Muawiyah I. His refusal to accept Imam Husayn's legitimate grievances and demands for justice played a central role in the conflict.

Supporters of Yazid: There were factions and individuals in Kufa who initially expressed support for Imam Husayn but later abandoned him or didn't come to his aid during his journey, contributing to the tragic outcome at Karbala.

I might have been a little too quick to add the sources, but if you do a little digging of your own on the article Battle of Karbala, you will find that the information I added is true and authentic.

Nevertheless, we can remove the terms "treachery" and "stood for justice and righteousness." However, it is a well-known fact that Yazid's rule was indeed tyrannical and oppressive. Mentioning the hardships endured on that day helps clarify why this month has such solemnity associated with it. StarkReport (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"general description" by whom? By you? Ibn Ziyad and Ibn Sa'd led the battle, so what? Who decides whether Husayn's demands were legitimate or illegitimate? For this alleged "Well-known fact" you should be able to find dozens of high quality RS. Isn't it? AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AhmadLX I have received WP:3O request about your ongoing discussion @ Talk:Muharram from @StarkReport though SR should have communicated to you about the same and list the request @ WP:3O. SR contribs show SR seem to have requested inputs from some other users too.

WP:3O says: ".. It is recommended that the filing editor notifies the second editor about the post here. If the second editor disagrees with this process, the first editor still has the right to receive a third opinion; however, since this is non-binding, the second editor is free to ignore the third opinion if they wish to. .."

Bookku (talk) 08:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I needed to see what do you think of this revision:

"Wellhausen and Lammens, have characterized Husayn's revolt as a premature and ill-prepared campaign led by an ambitious individual. They argue that Husayn made significant demands but failed to take substantial action, relying on others to handle the situation. Moreover, they view Husayn's actions as leading to disturbances in public peace. According to Heinz Halm, Husayn's revolt can be understood as a struggle for political leadership among the second generation of Muslims. Fred Donner, G. R. Hawting, and Hugh N. Kennedy see Husayn's revolt as an attempt to regain what his brother Hasan had renounced."

"On the other hand, Vaglieri interprets Husayn's motivations as being driven by ideology. He posits that the available historical materials suggest Husayn was deeply convinced of being in the right and was resolutely determined to achieve his objectives.[90] Similarly, Madelung contends that Husayn was not a "reckless rebel" but instead a religious man, motivated by pious convictions. According to him, Husayn was convinced that "the family of the Prophet was divinely chosen to lead the community founded by Moḥammad, as the latter had been chosen, and had both an inalienable right and an obligation to seek this leadership." He was, however, not seeking martyrdom and wanted to return when his expected support did not materialize. Maria Dakake holds that Husayn considered the Umayyad rule oppressive and misguided, and revolted to reorient the Islamic community in the right direction. A similar view is held by Mahmoud Ayoub. S. M. Jafri proposes that Husayn, although motivated by ideology, did not intend to secure leadership for himself. Husayn, Jafri asserts, was from the start aiming for martyrdom in order to jolt the collective conscience of the Muslim community and reveal what he considers to be the oppressive and anti-Islamic nature of the Umayyad regime."

Comparing this version with my initial editing, I've taken care to ensure that no sourced content is removed. Rather, I've strategically restructured the material to effectively present scholars' viewpoints without relying on direct quotes. This approach enhances the balance and informativeness of the presentation, all while avoiding any potential concerns of excessive condensation. StarkReport (talk) 11:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda. We are getting old ;) AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]