User talk:CaliphoShah

About Benazir Bhutto article
I notice your edit on Benazir Bhutto article. I want to clear your doubt at this matter.


 * Firstly, In the article of Benazir Bhutto had stated that she is the first woman who had govern a muslim mejority nation. Now you are telling that she is not because it is Arwa al-Sulayhi who is first ruled a muslim mejority country but here is difference between rulling and governing. Government" can mean governing but usually refers to the abstract institution doing the governing, or the particular team of people comprising the government at a particular time. "Governance" can mean governing but usually refers more to the style of governing. "Ruling" is what a ruler does, as in a king or dictator. It can be used more broadly to inject king/dictator connotations into political diatribes, or to save letters in headlines.


 * Secondly, you are changing the information of article what has been taken from verified source like The Daily Telegraph, NYT. Which is wrong before changing this information you must had gave some verified source according to your arguement and if it create disagreement with other editor. Yor had it negotiate it through talk page discussion rather than creating edit conflict.

I hope you will be more conscious next time. Bests Ominictionary (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The distinction you are making is not obvious and it seems subjective. Governing is also defined as " To exercise political authority." according to freedictionary. I will change the Bhutto article because the statement is not accurate. CaliphoShah (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at DNA history of Egypt shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 05:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no edit war here. I only added more information and was willing to compromise. As a matter of fact, you did not even revert all of my changes. Thus indicating you agree with at least some of my changes. There is no hostility. It is very important to make sure the history section of DNA history of Egypt does mention that the clad is not just African but Subsaharan African as the reader will be confused since Egypt is in Africa. It is important to note modern Egyptians have an increase of SubSaharan clade than do Ancient Egyptians. CaliphoShah (talk) 05:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello CaliphoShah, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Omnipresence have been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Demographics of Tunisia
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demographics_of_Tunisia&oldid=796243880 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.106.197.129 (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Help on Ka'ab al-Ahbar article
Hi there I wanted to ask you if you could help even out this article someone added on the infobox that he is from the Sunni School of thought and added a sunni muslim category to make out Sunnis follow a former Jew. Also on Abdullah ibn Saba page the same ip editor removed Shia muslim category to hide his Shia background. 82.132.224.25 (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Edits
While you are certainly permitted to remove posts from this page, as an uninvolved party I would remind you that being correct is not a defense to edit warring or 3RR, and the other user is quite correct that if unsourced information is removed that the onus is on you to provide a source or otherwise explain why the information should remain, doing so on the article talk page. I have posted a similar message to the other user regarding edit warring; please discuss this matter or take it to the 3RR noticeboard. Thank you 331dot (talk) 09:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * To 331dot, I didn't breach the 3RR. I made 3 reverts under 24 hours. And the reverts were done becasue there was vandalism as the user removed sourced info, not just unsourced one. On top of it, he has a history of vandalism. I can bring up his behavior from other articles as I have them detailed. Famous wiki editors like Eperoton and Al Andalus have had issues with him before. I'd like to know why you reverted my last revert. CaliphoShah (talk) 09:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If there is a content dispute about an article, typically the article is reverted to the last uncontroversial edit to discuss the matter. I don't pretend to know everything about this dispute, but the edit warring needs to stop.  It either needs to be discussed on the article talk page or reports made to the appropriate noticeboards like the 3RR board.  Please note that even if you technically have 3 reverts or less in 24 hours you can still be determined to be editing disruptively, breaking the spirit of 3RR. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The last uncontroversial edit was included a fix of a source and an added citation, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Muslims_by_Meccans&oldid=796605524
 * Also, the user Swingoswingo was already edit warring with another user before in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Muslims_by_Meccans&oldid=790304891. So it's not like I'm dealing with an angel. So far, he has been edit warring with two users.
 * I will start a discussion but I don't think it's going to end well given the last one he had with the other user in this same article.CaliphoShah (talk) 09:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment on Moors
Hello CaliphoShah! I'd love to hear your opinion on this RfC regarding the opening sentence of the article Moors. Many Thanks. Tarook97 (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2019
Hello, I'm Dharmalion76. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from Arab slave trade. However, Wikipedia is not censored. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dharmalion76 (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Dharmalion76 I am reposing the comment that you've removed. I find this to be of bad faith. I find it interesting you have removed the discussion, which was fairly civil, and archived your talk page. I'll put in italics the last comment I managed to save. CaliphoShah (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC) ''::::::No offense intended but you've reverted the changes, accusing me of censorship. So I'd like to continue discussing it on this talk page to resolve that issue after being invited to do so. And it seems you have not read or understood what I've been saying. − 	''::::::The lead of the article doesn't disagree with "Arab slave trade" in the context of East Africa. It acknowledges that Arab slave trade is a subject. It acknowledges that the subject includes East Africa. It doesn't however agree with the name. Nothing in the following quoted lines justifies your position "Walter Rodney argues that the term Arab ::::::Slave Trade is a historical misnomer since bilateral trade agreements between myriad ethnic groups across the proposed 'Zanj trade network' characterized much of the acquisition process of chattel, and more often than not indentured servants.[7] He alternatively refers to it as the East African slave trade or the Indian Ocean slave trade."'' − 	::::::Please explain in your own words, what do you think "Arab slave trade" is as a subject because the lead makes it very clear that it's not talking about slavery of Europe and slavers of North Africa − 	''::::: Disagreement of what something means isn't a carte blanche to use a term outside of the scope of disagreement. The lead is very clear on what the scope of the disagreement is. That scope has boundaries. Which is why unicorns, baseball and marriage shouldn't be confused with Arab slave trade.CaliphoShah (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)