User talk:IslamicrevialistmMujahid

Welcome to Wikipedia! 

Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions! I'm, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge. We are all equals here and we value the input of the newest editors as much as our oldest contributors. If you need any help at all, let me know <3! Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type  here on your talk page, and someone will try to help. Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes   at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your, a link to this talk) page, and a timestamp. The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun! To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. ou can  for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you  put  on.

 Sincerely, ♥ Solarra ♥  ♪ 話 ♪  ߷  ♀ 投稿 ♀   [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Solarra&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Welcome_to_Wikipedia/user-talk_preload (Leave me a message)]

Español

Deutsch

Français

Italiano

עברית

Русский

日本語

Polski

فارسی

June 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=611920583 your edit] to Maurice Béjart may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * [Category:Swiss former Christians]

Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Éric Abidal, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Nathan Ellington, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Please stop.
Please stop your mass edits and category additions. Just because someone converts to Islam does not automatically make them a former Christian. Some of these categories you are adding are redundent, e.g. former English and former British. Please research what you are adding before you add it. Martin 4 5 1  01:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that your reverts of some of this user's edits are entirely inappropriate, Martin451. In this instance, you claimed there was "no evidence for Category" despite there being both a clear statement and a source in the article itself. Here you pretended to be unaware that a man living in 16th century England could have been raised as anything but Christian. That does not strike me as good faith. Surtsicna (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No. The evidence is that he converted to Islam. There is no evidence that he was a Christen before. Wikipedia works on WP:VERIFYability, not on wp:or or WP:SYNTHESIS. Religious views a personal choice, not what others label you as. Martin 4 5 1  01:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, read the cited source before making incorrect statements. Since we are hardly in a position to interview people who have been dead for centuries, we can only rely on how "others" labeled them. Wikipedia also operates under Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. You are perfectly aware that the two men were Christians, yet you revert sensible edits to illustrate a point. Such behaviour is disruptive. Surtsicna (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Apart from WP:V etc. what point am a I trying to make. Yvonne Ridley has just been labelled a former Christen, despite no evidence. User_talk:IslamicrevialistmMujahid is just labelling Muslim converts as former Christens without evidence. The two men you mentioned may have lived in a Christen country, but that does no mean they believed, or even open worshipped. If you have a problem with my edits, then please take me to WP:ANI. Martin 4 5 1  02:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That point precisely. No information about living people should be added without a reliable source, per WP:BLP. If historians describe historical people as Christians, so do we. We do not question their zeal or conviction, nor do we measure how good or bad Christians they were. If you continue seeking trouble for no reason, you are bound to be taken to WP:ANI. Surtsicna (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

User talk:IslamicReavilistMujahid Yvonne Ridley listen to her talk on her way to Islam she said that she used to go to Church twice a month. She was Anglican prior to becoming a Muslim
 * Then that needs to be added into the article with a reliable source, before (or at the same time) as the category is added. I have no problem with adding correct categories, but a new user adding categories to many articles in quick succession looks strange, especially new categories. You need to look at what you are adding based upon reliable sources, instead of just blindly adding categories to multiple pages. Martin 4 5 1  03:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Where have historians described these particular individuals as Christens? They lived in a Christen country, but that does not make them so, historians have never claimed these to be former Christens according to the cited sources. The references for John Nelson never claimed he was a former Christen, just that he converted to Islam, there is little knowledge of his life before that. This user is adding living people as former Christens when wikipedia makes no mention of it e.g. Yvonne Ridley. Wikipedia is based upon WP:V not WP:I think this may be true. Suggesting I am being disruptive when I am not, is in itself disruptive. I suggest you undo your last edits to John Nelson (convert) as your behaviour is disruptive. Martin 4 5 1  02:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

User talk:IslamicReavilistMujahid I agree that's why I have stopped labeling all people former Christians only those who have already being stayed either in the categories or on the page it self to be former Christians. I admit did begin to label people who had not being stayed as such but i have stopped that. The only reason I am doing this is because a deficiency on Wikipedia in regards to former Muslims vs former Christians,  to the point that a Druze man who was called Muhammed had being labelled a former Muslim  despite being of Druze background ,and by the way all the people I labelled came from the Page List of Converts to Islam from Christianity leading me to assume initially that they were all ex Christians, don't blame me blame the peopele who contribute to the page. So I will not stop unless you can give me a good reason. however I take your point about labeling all and redundant edits. but I am not going to stop
 * Martin, is there a particular reason for your referring to Christians as Christens? Are we talking about the same group of people? Surtsicna (talk) 08:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Talk page stalker I don't see an issue with his edits adding categories to articles, especially since they are all sourced as far as I can see.  thank you for your edits and Welcome to Wikipedia. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪   ߷  ♀ 投稿 ♀  03:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at List of converts to Christianity from Islam, you may be blocked from editing. Also, you have provided no sources to contradict the claims presented in the respective articles. TLA 3x &#x266d;  →  &#x266e;  05:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abu Omar al-Shishani, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

February 2015
Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:
 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list and
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! 220  of  Borg 09:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nigerian organized crime, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Yoruba and Igbo. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Marking controversial edits as minor
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Ibn Arabi, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". This edit removed a reference and contradicted the previous claim, so it cannot possibly be minor. LjL (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Using edit summaries
Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:
 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list and
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks!

Your last three edits, at least, were controversial at least in part because you failed to provide any rationale for making them. LjL (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Policy violations, WP:BLP and others
It has become obvious that you do not wish to follow Wikipedia policies and are actively harming articles here. You are pursuing some personal agenda that conflicts with the goals here.

For instance, your labelling every Muslim that has had anything to do with Communism, etc. as "former Muslim". This is just one example. Notice in the article where it says "boycotted Salman Rushdie's trip to South Africa in 1998 claiming that he was a blasphemer." You aren't looking at any evidence except your personal theories.

Your numerous violations of WP:BLP absolutely must stop. Wikipedia is not your personal playground for misbehaviour. Shenme (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I can bring you fatwa from big Ulama declaring Muslims who become Communists Non muslims, to use as my source if this to your liking, as for personal insults on your part, so what if they "boycotted a trip by Rushdie" this proves nothing IslamicrevialistmMujahid (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Fatwas are in no way reliable sources about anything except their own existence and details, and most certainly not about whether someone can be defined a Muslim. This encyclopedia is not based on Islamic decrees. LjL (talk) 02:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

What is the basis for authentic Islamic opinions on contemporary issues? IslamicrevialistmMujahid (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but it doesn't matter, because Wikipedia's articles are not based on "authentic Islamic opinions". They are based on reliable sources, which are, in general, not even religious in nature at all. LjL (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

So a fatwa is not a relible source on Islamic related topics? I see IslamicrevialistmMujahid (talk) 02:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * In a word: no. It's really only reliable to report on its own content (i.e. you can use a source quoting the fatwa's content in an article about the fatwa itself). LjL (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

So im fascinated to know what is a realible source on islam related issues according to wikipedia?IslamicrevialistmMujahid (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Why don't you actually read the page about reliable sources that I repeatedly linked? Secondary, academic sources are generally preferred for any topic. Fatwas are, at best, primary sources about themselves. Rest assured that we would not say that someone is a "former Catholic" simply because the Pope excommunicated them, either. That would be absurd. LjL (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

So Orientalist works, by Non Muslims or Westrenised Muslims who follow in the Orientalist tradition, and why isnt someone excomincated by the Pope an ex Catholic? IslamicrevialistmMujahid (talk) 03:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe because they still consider themselves Catholic? Maybe because others consider them Catholic? WP:RS is what we decide it based on. LjL (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I specified "Islam related" not sources in general, there is a diffrence. IslamicrevialistmMujahid (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No difference. There is no special exception on Wikipedia for Islam-related topics. They must follow the same sourcing rules as everything else. LjL (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

So as I said an orientalist work. IslamicrevialistmMujahid (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * If that's how you interpret WP:RS. Suit yourself. Just don't except religious decrees to dictate the content of Wikipedia articles. LjL (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

What if I brought a book by any Islamic scholar would this be accepted as a source? I suspect not IslamicrevialistmMujahid (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Lorenzo why arent you answering my question? IslamicrevialistmMujahid (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * While I can't speak for anyone but myself, I'll venture a guess that nobody is responding because you're treating this like some sort of debate that can be won. There is no debate when it comes to site policies and guidelines. If you have a specific source you aren't sure about, you can ask for community feedback on Reliable sources/Noticeboard. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. LjL (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

March 2016
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Greek Muslims, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 06:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Afghan former Shia Muslims


A tag has been placed on Category:Afghan former Shia Muslims requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Converts to Sunni Islam from Roman Catholicism


A tag has been placed on Category:Converts to Sunni Islam from Roman Catholicism indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 14:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)