User talk:Emir of Wikipedia/Archive 10

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Technology update: General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
 * Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!
 * The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: 
 * On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
 * Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

New article
There is a new article by the name of UAE and State-sponsored Terrorism. It is not a topic I am overly familiar with, or one that I have researched knee-down to be able to pass a judgement on. However, my first impression is that the article appears to be a codswallop of irrelevant and inconsistent bits of facts, and requires a cleanup. Given your expertise in the area, you may want to have a look and review it or leave suggestions.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 13:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

External links on Essential Phone
According to Wikipedia guidelines, it is allowed to add links to YouTube videos in the "External links" section of an article? I did to Essential Phone, after which you said it’s fine. Now is saying that it’s not allowed, so what can be done? Darius robin (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Guysayshi allows YouTube videos as links. Guysayshi believes Wikipedia has a rule that a link to a page containing the video must not have additional links that promote other products. The link to videos in the Essential Phone page "has links on the video page—the page that plays the video—that go to a commercial site". Guysayshi (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this discussion should have taken place on the article talkpage as it is abut article content and not a user, but I am grateful for you raising the issue. could you please tell me where this "rule" is written? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Here. Please also check User talk:Darius robin. Darius robin (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it might possibly come under the exception but I'll just revert back to the the final version you two seemed to agree on one. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Power Rangers (film) reverting my edits
Why did you revert all of my edits? 86.182.7.252 (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What substantive edit did you make? Feel free to make it again, but don't add unsourced information or original research. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I alphabetized all the Categories at the bottom of the page, added a tag for a statement which you then removed (thanks!), and was about to do some minor copyediting. 86.182.7.252 (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Reliable source
What could possibly be unreliable about a source on an Islamic aspect spoken to by former Muslim who grew up in Islam? If good faith means anything, then please respond. Otherwise, your accusation that it is unreliable is totally uncalled for. Audeamus42 (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC) 10:20, 09/24/17
 * I presume that this is regarding Taqiya. I am not sure if you are being sarcastic by saying a that a former Muslim couldn't be potentially unreliable, as that sounds like they would be WP:BIASED. Furthermore WP:USERGENERATED content content is probably not going not be reliable either. How is the source reliable? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Using a link like WP:BIASED sounds good. The problem is that when you go to it and read it, it offers the very real case of supporting my link as reliable. I used a user generated source for a reason that should be apparent. I had mentioned a number of direct doctinal sources and wanted to provide the human element. For me, the human element is important. I am not sure that if or when I find other sources that you would not manufacture some sort of objection to that as well. Would you be happier were I just to not cite at all? Would that work for you?


 * I looked at the so-called "American Truth Project". Wow. Talk about unreliable (not to say unpleasant) sources! Doug Weller  talk 16:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have taken an interest in me, following me from discussion to discussion. I do not generally follow americantruthproject. I have seen a number of Anni Cyrus videos over time from other places. I do not speak to the general reliability of her site, but do believe she is authoritative concerning what she speaks of. I have not ever lived in the Middle East. However, I have learned to discount in important ways the views of those who have not lived there for over a decade. Concerning this issue, if you have personally lived in the Middle East for over a decade, I will acknowledge your authoritah as a bigwig wikipedia person and seek a more academic resource. Audeamus42 (talk) 09/24/17, 11:38.
 * I have not followed you from discussion to discussion. You commented on my talkpage. If you don't speak to the general reliability of her sist then how is authoritative concerning what she speaks of? Where you have lived is irrelevant, and so is where have lived. What matters is what the reliable sources say. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller spoke concerning me here. Am I not permitted to address his actions here? I understand that life experiences may be irrelevant to you concerning understanding truth. I also understand that you are speaking at me and not to me. I do understand and will take action concerning this wiki removing the link as you are either unwilling or incapable of speaking to the possible positive outcome of doing so. Audeamus42 (talk) 09/24/17, 11:55.

Companies can have policies that are political in nature. GoFundMe does that. You may agree with those politics or not. But if you deny that those policies exist, then you are presenting GoFundMe as something that it is not. It might be that you really do doubt the reliability of my sources. However, I challenge you to prove me wrong. Why should people not be informed that the charity they give to is involved in things not popularly known of, whether they agree with those things or not? If you know and do nothing, then you have qualified wikipedia as a liar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Audeamus42 (talk • contribs)
 * I presume this is now regarding GoFundMe and not Taqiya. Why don't you just discuss on the article talkpage? I didn't say that companies can't have policies that are political in nature. It doesn't matter whether I agree with them as long as the article is WP:NEUTRAL. I am not denying that policies exist but please read WP:NOT, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and just some random collection of information. Regarding the reliability of sources please read WP:RS. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I should take a step back from all this. In the long run, I am a history student interested in professional history. I recognize the fundamental flaw of using an encyclopedia my professors have warned me about now because you encouraged me to review wiki's take on reliable sources. I found this:

Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

This statement goes fundamentally against the pursuit of professional history by all historical schools since the notion of professionalism concerning history was approached. This really is a profound statement. While this may view of reliable sources may serve you well in your mind, this point speaks powerfully against the possibility of excellence in the treatment of history. The study of history is deeply flawed. I am not defending it. Practically, there are serious flaws in wiki that I thought until now I could work through, or with. But this is basic and I am sure you will never understand why. I'll not trouble you guys any further. I stand corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Audeamus42 (talk • contribs)

Power Rangers (film) citation section
What's wrong with having the citation at the end of the sentence like the other citations in the section? 86.173.238.53 (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We have the citation directly after the information it supports so readers can easily verify the information in the source. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Muhammad's wives
I saw this. So how can Wikipedia state 11, 12 or 13 in the lead when it is disputed? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Help with Islam in Turkey page
Hello! I would like your help reviewing the stunning amount of POV material on the Islam in Turkey page. Hopefully, we can use the talk page to come to a consensus that improves the page. We will be using the talk page for the next month (until 9 November 2017) to discuss the material in question and come to a decision. I would appreciate your input! User: Editor10! —Preceding undated comment added 02:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Weinstein
Sorry, I just accidentally flattened your changes in a merge conflict. You might want to make them again. Apologies. Popcornduff (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Technology update: General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
 * We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.
 * Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.
 * The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

3RR
Please be mindful of 3RR on the Cernovich page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Permitted insolence on English Wikipedia or is this another instance of racism?
Hello,

This has reference to the Calton's comments concerning "Hammadsaeed" / "Bukharisaeed" 's block.

The discussion originates in threaded discussion on my talk page or my initial post on his talk page.

Agreed that I erred in assessing situation, agreed that I regretted my post on my talk page and started looking ahead.

But this user will just troll on English Wikipedia posting comments like "No, you WERE incompetent...". For him this will continue to a burning issue for personal attacks for years to come in any Wiki forum.

I regret to see such racist approach here. Your admins like Josh are bound to find fault in may be my post but not in the repeated personal attack on me by Calton. Highly lamentable situation! --Muzammil (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

：You fucked up. You fucked up badly. You aided and abetted a doxxer EVEN AFTER BEING TOLD THAT. You've never taken the slightest responsibility -- even trying to hide my asking for it -- and now you're reduced to crying "racism" and drumming up support from random editors rather than, say, actual administrators? You're digging a hole for yourself.--Calton | Talk 17:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't edit much on English Wikipedia because of a handful of trolling people like you. Things will only crop up again and again if you keep crying "I was a victim" and "he is something" --Muzammil (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If you're going to assist doxxers, we're all better off if you stay away completely. You are in the wrong here; I've given you the benefit of the doubt, assuming a language problem, but it really seems here that there is a Support and Safety issue. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 18:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've regretted the whole episode and moved ahead - see the last comment on my talk page. But your friend is again making the whole issue alive. It's sad that you have nothing to say to him? When he says some adjective against me, provoke me, you support him?--Muzammil (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, it might be a language problem. We all regret what you've done. But you've not actually apologized to the person you've harmed nor to the community you've harmed. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 18:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Sabrina Ho
Th text in Sabrina Ho is from her old Wikipedia article (active 24-48 hours ago). It is not copyright infringement or stolen. The article was wrongfully deleted for being a promotion or advertising. Most of the article reads as a factual encyclopedia entry with very credible news sources. I intend to clean up certain sections over the next few days to further comply.Editor72072 (talk) 11:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It still copyright infringement as in the history their is no attribution. If you want to help with the article help with the version at User:MacauWizard1/Sabrina_Ho, which has the attribution in the history. Meanwhile I suggest you add or let my tag remain. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. How can I go about importing the history from User:MacauWizard1/Sabrina_Ho to the new article so that there is attribution? Is a redirect possible? I am trying to restore the page since it was wrongfully deleted and make further edits over the next 2-3 days to ensure further compliance. Editor72072 (talk) 12:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You can not import the history. Only admins can. What do you mean by a redirect? We don't redirect from the article space to userpages. What do you mean restore the page? It was restored and moved to User:MacauWizard1/Sabrina Ho. If it was wrongfully deleted then go to WP:Deletion Review, but don't violate copyright. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you help me understand why this was tagged as G11? It does include a lot of puffery but the article seems to include evidence of notability (at least many mentions in what seem to be reliable sources) and it doesn't strike me as needing to be "fundamentally rewritten" to be acceptable for Wikipedia. CapitalSasha ~ talk 15:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't tag it as G11. It was who deleted it under that criteria. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah OK sorry, I saw you had unreviewed the page so I assumed you had also tagged it. My apologies. CapitalSasha ~ talk 15:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I did unreview it, but that was because the page was recreated with attribution as discussed above. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks! CapitalSasha ~ talk 16:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * and it was I who userified it--it is now at Draft:Sabrina Ho /  DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with you and there is a discussion presently occurring at Deletion_review/Log/2017_November_15WikiWhat888 (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I published this draft to an article as the language was significantly improved and compliant with Wikipedia standards. It does not violate copyright OR read as an advertisement (per G11). Can you please explain why you deleted my article with no explanation whatsoever? I am not a sock.MacauMan888 (talk) 11:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't delete the article. In fact I can't even delete articles as I am not an admin. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Suzanne Anker
Hi Emir of Wikipedia. In the article Suzanne Anker, there was no good resolution for the artificial chromosome link (the art piece in question was supposed to represent hippopotamus chromosomes) and no real need to mention artificial chromosomes at all, so I removed that phrase. Leschnei (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)