Talk:Shaykh Tusi

Language rendition
Can improvement be made to the text regarding non-translated symbols in ASCII? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.230.234.248 (talk) 06:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent Revert
User:HyperGaruda, DeCausa, Human10.0 and Toddy1 are hereby invited to take a look at my most recent edit which seems to have been reverted. Seeing that Mehdi ghaed has reverted me without providing any reason in the edit summary. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * you have to mention why delete my edtion not me. i think your reason are not sufficient and necessary.--m,sharaf (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @ m,sharaf that is precisely the reason I have invited other editors to this debate. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * you speedy both removed my edition and removed other information in Article. it is not fairness. at least you have to alarm me to solve the problem if there were any problem.--m,sharaf (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have identified the CopyVio source and removed the section accordingly. Please be aware that adding copy-pasted material to Wikipedia is copyright infringement, which should be removed as soon as possible. - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * What you are attempting to do, is the right thing to do. What I do not understand, is why you did not write a few lines on this talk page explaining your edit.  If you had done this at the same time as making the edit at 8:31, 16 December 2015, you would have made everyone's life easier.  (Especially your own.)


 * I am a bit confused about the extent of copying from Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition.
 * Were all the paragraphs deleted by FreeatlastChitchat at 08:31, 16 December 2015 stolen from Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition?
 * Or was the copyright theft limited to the paragraphs deleted by HyperGaruda at 18:04, 16 December 2015?
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The copyvio was limited to what I had deleted. Brill's encyclopedic language is characterised by the many diacritics used in transliterating from Arabic (e.g. ʿarabī), so it's not difficult to see what is theirs. The rest seems to be cleanup of unsourced content and fixing faulty English ("plain old gibberish" if I'm correct). Although it is mentioned -in a way- in the edit summary, a bit more specificity and less metaphors could have made it easier to understand for some. - HyperGaruda (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@ Toddy1 My edit removed four things. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Direct copypaste/theft of Brill which comes under copyvio and it was the most seriuos problem
 * 2) Nonsensical phrases, which were just not understandable.
 * 3) Peacock terms and other value laden phrases
 * 4) Unsourced content.

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/al-tusi-SIM_7653. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. HyperGaruda (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

insufficient reason for deletion of added part
. i add one part by the name "establishment of Najaf Hawzeh. but you delete this part along with other parts. whilst your reason according to wikipedia is not relevant. this part also has valid reference.--m,sharaf (talk) 09:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

development of article
. I want to demand you to complete the article as it is did in the Shaykh Al Mofid. Aslo i try to propose a new construction for article.--m,sharaf (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * m,sharaf: Good suggestion. I think Many references used in Shaykh al-Mufid can be used here, too. Mhhossein (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)