User talk:Dare4

Welcome!
Hi, Dare4. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place   on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your welcome --Dare4 (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Unreliable hadeeths (March 14)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Origamite was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Unreliable hadeeths and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Dare4 Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Origamite&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Dare4 reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Origamiteⓣⓒ 02:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Unreliable hadeeths has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Unreliable hadeeths. Thanks! Origamiteⓣⓒ 21:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Unreliable hadeeths has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Unreliable hadeeths. Thanks! Origamiteⓣⓒ 14:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Unreliable hadeeths has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Unreliable hadeeths. Thanks! Origamiteⓣⓒ 16:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Unreliable hadeeths has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Unreliable hadeeths. Thanks! Origamiteⓣⓒ 23:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Unreliable hadeeths has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Unreliable hadeeths. Thanks! Origamiteⓣⓒ 20:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Unreliable hadeeths has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Unreliable hadeeths. Thanks! Origamiteⓣⓒ 01:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

3RR warning
Your recent editing history at Banu Qurayza 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. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I'm not engaged in any edit war. I never refused to discuss. You pointed out to me that I did not quote any sources ( 18:37, 8 December 2016) and that is what I did yesterday (22:24, 8 December 2016) quoting A. GUILLAUME page 463, 464. I am asked to supporte primary sources by non-primary sources. Is that right? If so, many secondary sources are available. Are you ok?--Dare4 (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources are preferable, especially for editorial opinions such as you have been trying to add, using unqualified terms like "some" or "none". We cannot have unattributed opinions in Wikipedia articles. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, should we cite only the secondary sources or can we add the primary sources?--Dare4 (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Responding to an invitation... Yes, you need to cite a secondary source because it is a synthetic statement about primary sources (making a generalization about all of them) which also involves interpretation (of Muhammad's exclamation which some authors take to be an allusion to Moses). Eperoton (talk) 03:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, should we cite only the secondary sources or can we add the primary sources? Referring to Anachronist, I note that you use terms unqualified as "some". Muhammad's exclamation is clear, he makes no allusion to Moses--Dare4 (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You wrote in the article: Only some contemporary authors (20th/21th century) evoke Deuteronomy or a Biblical law, the primary sources (Ibn Ishaq, Tabari, etc.) do not mention it. In this case "some" is unqualified WP:WEASEL wording; no source was given to verify what "some" refers to. Saying the primary sources don't mention or allude to Biblical law is an interpretation that requires secondary sources. Biblical law involves more than Moses. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll be more specific.--Dare4 (talk) 07:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)