User talk:Mcphurphy

Disambiguation link notification for April 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sexual slavery in Islam, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mauritanian, Palestinian and Mezre ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Sexual_slavery_in_Islam check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Sexual_slavery_in_Islam?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 15:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

May 2020
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. SharʿabSalam▼  (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Thanks for the message. I have seen it just now and noted it. I would also request you retain the version of the article as it was before the bold edit by Arsi786 as WP:NOCON states "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." The dispute started from Arsi786's bold edit when he removed the content from Rape in Islamic law some days ago. The content I added had been there uncontested for more than a month. Mcphurphy (talk) 04:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring at Rape in Islamic law
Hello Mcphurphy. You've been warned for edit warring per a complaint at the noticeboard. You may be blocked if you revert the article again without first getting a consensus in your favor on the article talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring once again
You literally just got warned for not edit warring less than 24 hours ago. yet you're at it again in Concubinage in Islam.VR talk  08:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I restored the last stable version twice and ecxplained my reason for it on the talkpage. And I have not exceeded 3RR. I also recommend you stop these constant reverts back to a poor quality version where the sources have been distorted. I have demonstrated the verifiability of each and every single sentence that was removed, and you and the other editors have not engaged with that. Regards, Mcphurphy (talk) 08:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You have now violated 3RR in just under 3 hours. This is your second violation of 3RR this week.VR talk  10:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you show how I have violated 3RR? I only made two reverts (the same number of reverts as you did). After that I have only been editing that article just as you have been doing. I thought its allowed to continue editing like you have been doing. Please clarify. Mcphurphy (talk) 10:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My edits are not reverts. They introduce entirely new content into the article that has never been added before. Your reverts re-introduce the same content (partially) that you tried introducing in your revert.VR talk  10:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh okay. I am sorry for that. I did not understand the rules. Can I self revert? Mcphurphy (talk) 10:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. VR talk  10:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Similarities to wikiquote user
As I pointed out both you and a wikiquote account დამოკიდებუილება2 use the exact same sources and exact same page numbers. I count more than 40 such instances - too many to be a coincidence. In many cases both of you make the exact same spelling mistakes. You have since said that დამოკიდებუილება2 was copying you. (There are cases where დამოკიდებუილება2 uses the same source as you but couldn't have possibly copied you, but you seem chalk that up to coincidence.) Yet, it seems that დამოკიდებუილება2's confirmed sockmaster, ΞΔΞ, used the exact same sources as you before you inserted them into Concubinage in Islam: Did you also copy the wikiquote accounts? VR talk  02:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * you both cite Bina D’Costa, Nation building, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia, pp.57-58 (Mcphurphy on April 4, 2020,ΞΔΞ on 3 June 2019)
 * you both cite Larry Collins and D. Lapierre, Freedom at Midnight (Mcphurphy on April 4, 2020, ΞΔΞ on 27 May 2019)
 * I just noticed above that you felt I was hounding you. If you'd rather I not post such questions here, I can strike it out (or you can feel free to remove it).VR talk  02:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * How is using the same sources proof of anything? Those two books are popular sources on that topic area and are available online either in archive collections or Google Books. Anyone can access them. I also notice that user used many, many sources which I have never cited or read of. Mcphurphy (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The user cites more than 40 of the exact same sources that you cite. That's a lot to be coincidental. The account also makes the same typos as you. The account makes the same insertions as you:
 * For example, Kecia Ali's quote is: "tantamount to the crime of zina and/or rape.” But both of you write "tantamount to the crime of zina [illicit sex] and/or rape". (Mcphurphy,დამოკიდებუილება2)
 * VR talk  03:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Then they have probably copied from the content in the articles or discussion I wrote here. This is not exactly a niche topic. Its likely their interests overlap with mine and while writing their content they took from my publicly available content here. I see that they wrote their content on Concubinage in Islam months after I wrote mine here. Mcphurphy (talk) 03:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, you said that earlier. But how do you explain instances when they posted the quotes to wikiquote before you posted it to wikipedia as I showed above? Did you copy them too?VR talk  03:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You gave two "examples" above of quotes he posted to wikiquote before I supposedly "copied" them to Wikipedia. But the second example you gave is grossly incorrect. You have given a diff here of his quotes (which I have never copied) and juxtaposed that diff to mine where I merely added a citation to the Lapierre & Collins book. And that too, to a completely different page!
 * As for the first example, I don't exactly understand your point. I never posted any quote. I merely cited the same source (from where his quote came from) for the content which I wrote in my own words. That source is not his exclusive property. I have already said, its available online on Google Books. Anyone can cite it. Mcphurphy (talk) 03:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That said I do copy content from other parts of Wikipedia or look into sources cited on other articles to expand my own content. But I have never copied anything myself from this particular user. Although they have obviously copied my content on concubinage after I wrote the article here. Mcphurphy (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:CANVASSING
Please mind WP:CANVASSING on Rape in Islamic law. There are many editors who have edited the page, yet you sending messages only to those whose viewpoints are known to align with yours. For example, this was sent to someone who said "the article goes to great lengths to 'not' spell out what Islamic Law thinks about the rape of slaves". Then this comment sent to someone who said "I think this article may be missing what Islamic laws say regarding the rape of unbelievers." This is WP:VOTESTACKING.VR talk  04:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. I am only sending invitations for comment to users whose comments I have seen on the talkpage or recently editing the article substantially. Mcphurphy (talk) 04:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There are other users who have made comments much more recent than those but you never sent them invites. Please stop.VR talk  04:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Who are they? Mcphurphy (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This Grammar Damner fellow was the one person always defending the badfaith edits made by Koreanguteng... but at least his edits here were recent. Wefa's comment was from a year ago. As for the question Aaqib Anjum Aafī is an example.119.152.142.79 (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no editor who has made any recent substantial edits on Rape in Islamic law except for Arsi786 (topic banned), Vice regent, me or GrammarDamner. The rest have either done minor linking edits or reverts. On Talk:Rape in Islamic law the first three comments which come up belong to Eperoton (who I understand from experience to be busy), Wefa and Thinker78. Aaqib Anjum has made a recent comment on talkpage. So they are already there. But the first three have not commented for a couple of years so I thought it would be useful to invite them. I missed Eperoton because he seems busy as he looks late in contributing to Talk:Concubinage in Islam. Mcphurphy (talk) 05:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * GrammarDamner is arguably more there than Aaqib Anjum Aafī who made his comment more than a month ago, but alright. 119.152.142.79 (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is Eperoton, User:Al-Andalusi and User:AaqibAnjum. Being neutral would require you to ping all three as all of them have engaged in discussion. If they are busy or not interested, that's their choice, you can't decide for them.VR talk  14:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go ahead and notify all three of these users. I see that Eperoton is already there, I will still send a courtesy message.VR talk  16:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Please don't edit others' comments
I am not a fond of what you did here. The IP's comments came first and were in response to mine as indicated by the indentation. You changed their order and indentation, which effectively makes them look like in response to yours. Please don't edit other people's comments. If you want to interject, you can increase the indentation of your own comments, but don't change the indentation of someone else's.VR talk  15:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:CANVASSING again
This is a very obvious violation of WP:CANVASSING. You know the views of the user so this is WP:VOTESTACKING. And your message is biased, so this is also Canvassing. You were warned about canvassing earlier, yet you have persisted, and I feel this must now be taken to admins.VR talk  15:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Mcphurphy, it comes across as a bit suspect, even though it's just one editor. Maybe be extra careful from now on when it comes to invitations. El_C 17:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I merely asked an editor for input and help us move towards a resolution. I did not ask them to take any side although I gave my thoughts. Mcphurphy (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If you know the editor is likely to hold the same view as you in the given dispute, then that's inappropriate. Because you are effectively doubling your arguing power without balancing it out with an invitation of a likely opponent, also. El_C 15:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, just days before that editor explicitly sided with Mcphurphy in a dispute on another article.VR talk  18:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Do NOT edit my comments
I warned you before when you changed indents on someone else's comments to make it seem like they were responding to a different comment. I'm warning you again, do NOT edit my comments like you did here.VR talk  13:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not called editing comments. I am moving it to the appropriate section. Indenting someone else's comments is also not prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Mcphurphy (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No please don't, and if you do, you'll end up breaking links to my sections. You are free to start your own section, but do not move my comments around.VR talk  14:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Mcphurphy, it's not that single-purpose accounts such as yourself are unwelcome on Wikipedia, but you need to find a better way than edit warring (remember May?). Continuing to do so after the protection expires risks temporary of even permanent restriction from the only article which you seem to edit. Please reflect on that. El_C 23:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your advice. I don't like to revert others. But I feel this advice is a little unfair because calling 1 revert - of an editor who was not even participating on consensus building on the talkpage - an "edit war" seems like an overstatement. I also feel this advice should also be given to Vice regent because they have kept on doing reverts and new edits on that same article without consensus and despite opposition from multiple other editors such as . Mcphurphy (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's more than an advise, it's a warning. Please reflect rather than deflect. El_C 23:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay I will. But how can you stop an edit war if the other side refuses to stop doing the same? It takes two hands to clap, doesn't it? One sided warnings may also embolden Vice regent with his edit wars and defiance of consensus building with contentious new edits. His tactic is just to bulldoze his way through with controversial new changes to the article in the middle of unresolved discussions on the talkpage. I have repeatedly asked him to not do that but he is ignoring my requests. My pleas have fallen on deaf ears so far. Mcphurphy (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You turn to Dispute resolution. El_C 23:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I did. I went to DRN but that did not stop Vice regent from edit warring over at Rape in Islamic law. I think he should also be warned to keep things fair because I have tried my level best to resolve our disputes in good faith but he just won't stop with edit wars. Mcphurphy (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * DRN is not for disputes such as this. Read their disclaimer at the top of their page. See also this discussion from earlier today. El_C 00:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, dispute resolution by no means helps stop another editor from edit warring. I have shown you diffs where I have tried to discuss with VR on the talkpage but he still edit wars. How do you expect dispute resolution to work if he can get away with warring? Mcphurphy (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Follow the steps outline at WP:DR to resolve your dispute. That is the procedure. El_C 00:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Requesting article expansion support
@ User:Mcphurphy

Hello and greetings,

I have initiated a Draft:Comparison of rights and limitations of Muslim wives, female slaves and concubines and requesting you to have a look at the draft.

Where in which format on which wiki project the draft content can be used that call can be taken later.

If draft topic interests you then please do support in expansion and update of the Draft:Comparison of rights and limitations of Muslim wives, female slaves and concubines.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 03:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Approval
I made some edits to the article titled Sexual slavery in Islam. I think it needs to be approved by an "Extended confirmed user", so please approve it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.99.128.37 (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

October 2021
Your recent editing history at Sexual slavery in Islam shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.''Your larger reverts both individually break WP:3RR - you are reverting three separate groups of edits by myself, as well as at least one edit by Vice Regent in each case - this makes each of the large reverts in fact four reverts in one, so you have now broken WP:3RR rule twice. Further efforts to revert will be taken in bad faith.'' Iskandar323 (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Long term warring about treatment of female slaves under Islam
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. You are advised to wait for consensus before making any further reverts on this topic. EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced quotes
I ran out of edit comment space, but on thos equotations, without further sourcing making that link, you are making an inference - these quotes are about separating captives - they mention nothing about the use of the slaves, which leaves the quotes ultimately devoid of meaning in an article specifically about certain types of slavery - these quotes would be appropriate in History of slavery in the Muslim world, but the link you make to use for sex is simply not there in the quotations, so it is WP:SYNTH. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * For the time being I have no objection. Which is why I have not reverted you. Mcphurphy (talk) 06:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

3 reverts
You have made 3 reverts in just under 2 hours at Sexual slavery in Islam. And you were just blocked for edit warring a few days ago. If you continue, I will report you again.VR talk 22:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Canvassing
This looks like blatant canvassing. Your pings are selective and don't even come close to notifying all editors on that page. You pinged those who share your POV but haven't edited that page for more than a year. Yet you didn't ping many users who more recently commented on that page but have a viewpoint contrary to yours. Admin previously warned you about canvassing.VR talk 00:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Cut it with the accusations. Most of the editors I've pinged don't even share my views. SharabSalam, Dr Silverstein, Ahmad F Cheema were all on your side last time. Eperoton was neutral. Only Bolanigak shared my views. Mcphurphy (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A few minutes after your ping, Dr Silverstein comes along - having not edited this page in more than a year - and reverts to your version.VR talk 00:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not my version. My version is this one: Mcphurphy (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Dr Silverstein reverted to this revision by you on October 28. Its amazing how they went through hundreds of edits involving thousands of bytes in just 17 minutes.VR talk 00:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't misrepresent the diffs. reverted to this revision by the AnomieBot . My last edit before AnomieBot was on 10:18, 28 October. You made 2 edits after me (which were in conflict with mine) at 13:09 and 13:26.  Toddy1 made on edit after that and then AnomieBot dated your tags at 15:39. So it looks like Dr Silverstein has reverted to your version with the citation needed tags. Not mine. Had they wanted to revert to my preferred version, surely they would have reverted to this version where I re-added the reference you were removing. Mcphurphy (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This link shows there is absolutely no difference between your version on 21:01, October 28, 2021 and Dr Silverstein's version on 00:09, November 13, 2021.VR talk 01:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Then why is your citation needed tag still there. Again, if they wanted to revert to my version they would not have retained your tag and would have instead reverted to this version where I had added in the reference. Mcphurphy (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion 2
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. VR talk 01:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello Mcphurphy. Please consider responding at the new AN3 complaint. It seems to me that you are risking an indefinite block. EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

November 2021
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)