Talk:Abu Mikhnaf

Untitled
The link at the very end of the article no longer works. I couldn't figure out how to correct it so I removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.244.124 (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

are you stupid?
ffs anon, are you stupid? you have going around and putting notability tags on articles and reverted it when removed. You have so little clue of the topics that you wouldn't even recognizes its notability even it it was in front of your forehead, like in this case, the article clearly says "He was the first historian to systematically collect the reports dealing with the events of the Karbala. His works was reliable among later historians -Shi'a and Sunni- like Tabari.[1] He has based his work on the eyewitness testimony of Dolham, Oqbeh, and Homayd bin Muslim .", and you put a freaking tag on it? Do you even know what this article is about`? Do you even understand what "Karbala" or "tabari" means? If yes, why are you wasting everybodies time with the stupid tags`? If no, why are you wasting every bodies time with the stupid tags`? --Striver - talk 23:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As a matter of fact, my IQ is in the 98th percentile, but personal attacks aside, that's not important ... this is a quote from the tag you removed ... "An editor has expressed a concern that the subject of the article does not satisfy the notability guideline or one of the following guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia: Biographies, Books, Companies, Fiction, Music, Neologisms, Numbers, Web content, or several proposals for new guidelines."


 * As the author, it is your responsibility to assert the subject's notability ... you must assume that the reader has never encountered the subject before ... I have, in fact, heard of him, and he may even satisfy WP:BIO, which says"The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field."


 * The problem is that WP:BIO also says, "an article's text should include enough information to explain why the person is notable, and such information should be verifiable." and the only source you have provided cannot be considered a verifiable or WP:Reliable Source because (a) it is anonymously written, (b) it is published only on a website, and (c) the truth of what they have to say about the subject cannot be verified ... that is the key role of WP:V that trumps notability ... there is nothing in the article except "He was the first historian to systematically collect the reports dealing with the events of the Karbala." ... and the only thing you have to back up the assertion is an anonymous PDF file.


 * Have I heard of the Battle of Karbala or Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari? It doesn't matter if I know, because what matters is the knowledge and information that the article provides for the reader ... the point is that nothing in the article asserts it's importance or notability ... Oh, you want me to read through some other anonymously written 170 page PDF file on some Shi'a Islam website owned by some Shi'a Islamic scholar to see why this event upon which he is such an authority is so worthy of my attention ... The current information content about the subject is hardly more than a stub, and it's "notability" hinges on the "verifiability" of the sources that document the subject.


 * And I'm supposed to believe anything I read in this one source ... why? Because you said so? Because it's from a "notable" Shi'a website? Show something that has been published somewhere more reliable and verifiable than a website that has a vested interest in enhancing the subject's notability ... like something published about the subject in a real book (with an ISBN) or in a real journal, and not just a website that by definition is not neutral point of view with regard to the subject.


 * OK, WP:N says, "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself", and this article only cites one published work that is not reliable ... that is sufficient reason for placing a notability tag on the article ... because it lacks reliable sources.


 * Now, I could have placed a db-bio tag on it, and an Administrator might have either done a Speedy Delete or sent it to Articles for Deletion (as has happened in the past when you removed the tags) ... but the point is not to get rid of the article, it's to have a verifiable article, and beau coup links to the same website as the only citation just doesn't meet Wikipedia standards, period ... the sooner you and realize this and stop creating stub articles that never get expanded (because you're Too Busy creating more stub articles), the sooner we can all stop wasting time in Deletion Reviews.


 * I'm just following "What links here" on articles that have been CSD or AFD, and the two of you keep showing up in the edit histories ... I mark things that need improvement, and you take it as a personal attack and remove the tag, calling it "vandalism" ... this is about the quality of your contributions, not their subject ... do not confuse the WP:BIO problems of this article with the WP:WEB problems of Al-islam.org and rafed.net ... although your lack of understanding of core Wikipedia policies is the root of these problems, they are, in fact, different kinds of articles ... some have no place here, and some need improvements to remain here, and believe it or not, these tags can attract editors willing to help you, not just the deletionists.


 * And by the way, I cut you some slack in The Harley-Quinn.com Argument and attributed your comments to the "anonymous" User:Charlie, so do not bring up the subject of my anonymity again ... if the logic of my arguments is correct, and my opinions are supported by other editors, then my identity does not matter. &mdash; 02:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize for the title, tone and personal attack, i lost my temper and it was highly inappropriate. I did not author this article, i only made a few minor changes to the text. Listen, when you go around and add the tag, you are not saying "this is notable, but it will be better if sourced", you are saying "this is non-sense, and prove it before it gets deleted!". There is a considerable difference in the tone. Have you tried the "unreferenced" tag? You yourself said that the bio is notable, so why are you advocating it being deleted?


 * I cannot be responsible for what you infer from a tag ... it says what it says, and that was what I meant ... if you find a tag threatening and remove it, that's your problem. Yes, I have tried "unreferenced", but you have removed them as well ... that's what escalated to the last CSD, if I'm not mistaken. --72.


 * Bro, you are going around in a destructive manner, you are saying that "everything is shit unless you fix it" instead of "this can be better", and that is very frustrating! This article for, example, you said "I have, in fact, heard of him, and he may even satisfy WP:BIO", that means that you know that this info can be verified, only that it has not been done so yet. If i write an article about some mumbo-jumbo, that would be un-verfiable. Something that can be verified but is not done so properly is not to be threatened with deletion, specially when you know that the person is notable. You see were im going? Your attitude is very destructive.


 * Actually, you'll find I was adding cite web and cite news tags to your articles months ago ... I got sick of cleaning up after you, as I have mentioned on several talk pages. --72.


 * I know that the responsibility is on the article, and so do you. Here is another thing you should know: WP:POINT: don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point, specially when you know that the person you are arguing is non-notable is in fact notable. Don't forget that you are an editor here as well and share the responsibility of editing this article


 * "Oh, you want me to read through some"... no, i don't want anything, i didn't even write this. "And I'm supposed to believe anything I read in this one source ... why? Because you said so?". No, because you KNOW so, you yourself admitted, so don't disrupt wikipedia to make points! Is the article lacking? So fix it, don't question the notability of articles you KNOW are notable.


 * Just because I've never heard of them does not mean that they are not notable ... and just because I have does not mean that they are. --72.


 * "that is sufficient reason for placing a notability tag on the article " no, that is enough to put a template:unreferenced tag on it, when you KNOW that the subject is notable.


 * That's a subjective opinion ... I do not remember why I chose one over the other at the time ... I often revisit a page 30 minutes later and change a tag ... sometimes I leave a post on the talk page ... and what I "know" does not matter here, just what I can verify ... if I don't see it, I tag it ... I don't go looking for it ... that's the author's responsibility ... if they are sufficiently notable, then the information should be easy to locate ... haven't you noticed all of my "tags" for Category:Year of birth missing and Category:Place of birth missing on articles for authors? If you can't even find out such simple things and provide a reliable source for it, then don't bother to create a stub article for that person because they probably don't meet WP:BIO ... and why isn't birth date and place ever cited in an article? Because it is assumed that the individual is notable enough that such information is easily confirmed elsewhere, either at a local library or by a Google search. --72.


 * IF you TRULY are concerned with the quality of the article, then explain to me why you have NEVER bothered to improve any of them? Because you don't care? We are free to create stubs, there is no anti-stub creation policy. Many of you "helpful" attempts have been nothing short of direct provocations on notable articles. Some have been borderline, granted, but most definitely not all. I have not had time to undelete al-Islam.org yet, but it will be, just as soon as you stop focusing on removing articles and instead work on improving articles. Put a unreferenced tag, put a fact tag, go find some sources your self, but stop being making my time here a living hell! I have no personal interest in either this guy, nor al-Islam.org, nor Rafed.net nor anyone else - you only need common sense to understand that the top page ranked Shi'a site is notbale, go find some sources of your preference to solve it to your satisfaction instead of working against a guy that simply wants more Shi'a related articles! . Being a stub is not a reason to get deleted, and you know that.


 * Dude, I'm the one who turned the Alexa and Google PageRank references into properly formatted citations, and changed "one of the most popular Islamic websites" to "one of the most popular Shia websites" before someone could claim, "Look at the lies he's trying to spread through Wikipedia!" And as for identifying yourself as "a guy that simply wants more Shi'a related articles", it sounds like you have an Agenda ... my advice is, "Stop just making stubs and expecting some other editor to do your research for you!" ... some stubs I fix and move on, but when I'm on redlink patrol and find a pattern of stubs that have been ignored for months, I start tagging them. Actually, I have no preferred references ... I follow links in an article, make cite tags that include the author's name and publication date by reading the URL in the reference, and generally make "cosmetic" changes like that in order to give the articles a more professional appearance ... I'm here to repair it, not to defend it. ... instead of "making more stubs" you should be doing some research and presenting something more out of the gate than just a stub ... that's what WP:N is all about. As for "less hostile" tags, it does not seem to matter what is in the tag, you delete it, and some other editor or admin puts an even "harsher" tag on it. --72.


 * Bro... Listen, i know that i have lost my temper, and i know that you are working in Good faith... so let me finish this of by saying that i have no personal grudge against you, i only get deeply frustrated when people work to delete my efforts, instead of working with me to find whatever is lacking... this way, nothing gets done, you loose your time, i loose my time, problem is that you are choosing to do what you do, while i have no other choose than spending 2 hours on every article you feel for "drive by taging".... It is obvious that you have other sources that you prefer when establishing notability, can't you consult those sources and add the sources that are lacking, instead of terrorizing me? ... man, i start again, sorry, i did not mean to get aggressive at you...


 * You are perfectly in your right of being anonymous, i will not bring it up again. I wish us both the best, peace. --Striver - talk 19:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to have interrupted your "flow" with my comments, but it's easier to address each point directly after it has been made. --72.75.85.159 05:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Abi Mikhnaf
It's been a while since I worked on this article, and it sure does not resemble the stub that I first encountered.

OTOH, the Notes (should be References) have a serious problem ... the blank links #2-4 (that's what caught my eye, BTW) all point to a site requiring registration ... see also: links normally to be avoided ... I'll come back later and make  references like #5 (which looks like my handiwork from my last visit. :-)

I'm kinda busy with something else at the moment, so I'm just leaving this note as a reminder to come back and do some anonymous Anonymous WikiGnome repairs. &mdash; 09:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Abu Mikhnaf's actual name?
Is the name given in the article actually correct? My friend says that the article is incorrect and his real name is Lut bin Yahya? Google gives this name: Lut bin Yahya bin S’aid bin Mikhnaf bin Salim Azdi. (82.15.59.115 (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC))

Abu Mukhanaf is a great Liar ...
Abu Mukhanaf is a Majoosi Liar. DSaeed111 (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

He born about 100 years of Husein AS death. DSaeed111 (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The lier
Abu Miknaf is one of the weakest people who lied for several times Alkagarawy (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)