User talk:ParthikS8/Archive 1

Verifiability
Hi, i'm, first, i would like to thank you for your contributions. Second, i would suggest you to provide reliable sources for your edits. Per WP:VER, your additions must be verifiable. If you need any help, do note hesitate to ping me and i'll try to help you the best i can. Best regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  20:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Have added citations. If you read WP:CHALLENGE first you would see that you could have easily have provided the citations and this is required of you instead of just going ahead and removing material nonchalently. The references for my edit were in the articles themselves - it wouldn't take you any effort to implement them if you felt it so necessary. Also not all info in the infoboxes needs to be cited when self-evident from the article itself - look at literally every infobox in every article! Were it not for the fact that you challenged my edits, I wouldn't have added the citations.
 * Hope we can both learn from this. ParthikS8 (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Precisely, WP:CHALLENGE says : "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.". I don't see where it's stated that i should go and find the sources for your edits ... I interacted politely and respectfully with you, i think that you should refrain from being aggressive toward others, especially when they suggest to help you. Best regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  20:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:CHALLENGE:"Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[4] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.[5] If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."
 * WP:CHALLENGE:"Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[4] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.[5] If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."


 * Refering to WP:PRESERVE:
 * "Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tagging it as necessary. If you think an article needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do so, but it is best to leave a comment about why you made the changes on the article's talk page. The editing process tends to guide articles through ever-higher levels of quality over time. Great Wikipedia articles can come from a succession of editors' efforts."


 * My harshness is my own fault and I am sorry for that. I just found it annoying that you didn't have the common courtesy to verify the edit yourself. ParthikS8 (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The above are only advices, not strict rules that everybody must apply (while WP:VER is ...). Anyway, you added the requested sources and i thank you for that. As to your harshness, already forgotten. Happy editing. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  21:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Muhammad Alawi al-Maliki
Hello my friend. Wikipedia requires citations In the article itself that link to reliable and authoritative third-party sources. Don’t just mention in edit summaries what you’ve read. Two good sets of Wikipedia guidelines that I have found really useful can be found HERE, regarding verifiability and HERE, regarding the need to maintain a neutral point of view. Best wishes, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , you reverted my edits which were the following:

It is at the top of page 185. If you wish to replace the words "well known" with "distinguished", I have no qualms but you cannot simply remove information found in the source - unless you are of course contesting the reliability of the source itself.
 * I reintroduced the words "well known" to the line "Muhammad ibn Alawi al-Maliki was born in Mecca to a family of well known scholars who, like himself, taught in the Sacred Mosque.[1]", as per the source cited for that line Marion Holmes Katz, The Birth of the Prophet Muhammad: Devotional piety in Sunni Islam, p. 185. ISBN 0203962141. Publication Date: June 6, 2007:"al-Maliki came from a family of distinguished scholars and educators in Mecca."
 * I changed all instances of his name in the article to "Muhammad ibn Alawi al-Maliki" as per all sources including Katz' book, this is his name.
 * I added "al-" before all instances of Maliki - this is a toponymic and his name according to all sources cited in the article.
 * I removed the citation/sources needed template at the top of the article as every sentence in the article as a whole has a citation, although the section quoting his works doesn't - note: I didn't remove that template. The article as a whole has citations/sources for what is stated in it, so I removed at the template at the top but not the specific section template.
 * Apart from this I made two cosmetic edits which aren't worth detailing.

I agree, which I why included the information found in the source cited in that very line - read the small [1].
 * "Wikipedia requires citations In the article itself that link to reliable and authoritative third-party sources. Don’t just mention in edit summaries what you’ve read. Two good sets of Wikipedia guidelines that I have found really useful can be found HERE, regarding verifiability and HERE, regarding the need to maintain a neutral point of view. Best wishes,"


 * Apologies for the harshness, you probably didn't realise that the source I was quoted was cited in the line. I will await a reply from you and will reinstate the edit in two days to avoid edit warring.


 * Best wishes to you too,
 * ParthikS8 (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * My dear friend, words like “well known” and “distinguished” diminish the neutral tone of an article and can even become puffery. In the meantime, I’ll double-check the source you say I ignored. Thanks and very best regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I would contest that saying he is "well known" diminishes the neutral tone. To be honest, I do not know much about the individual in question, but if a neutral source (which you seem to agree Marion Katz' book is), states "well known" then we should include it. E.g. in an article about a political figure would it be non-neutral to state he is "well known" if a neutral source describes him as such? Even people who are "well known" for negative reasons can be described in this way. It does not make a judgement on whether such an individual is a "good" individual or not. And no - it is clearly not puffery - I struggle to see how these two words which mean he is just that - "well known" - entail "puffery"...


 * I feel like I've stepped into some serious sectarian squabble... If you have problems with the individual in question, who is deceased according to the article, then please leave this out of Wikipedia. We are here to edit objectively, we're not here to bring cultural/religious/sectarian tensions into articles and our editing of them. We are just here to convey what the sources convey. I am sure you already understand this, given that you immediately quoted the neutrality policy to me, and given that you are a seasoned editor.


 * ParthikS8 (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Ps the very long and dense section on “education” has only one citation at the very end. In my assessment this is inadequately referenced which is why the template at the top should be retained. That was my rationale. Cheers, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, my point was that only that section remains uncited - which is why I kept the specific section template there whilst removing it from the entire article - it doesn't make sense to me to have two templates on the same issue on the article, when the rest of the article has adequate in-line citations.


 * Nevertheless, I have no qualms if you wish to keep the template up - I just see it as superfluous.


 * You have provided no reason however for undoing my edits to the name "Muhammad Ibn Alawi al-Maliki" - which is an important matter of accuracy (the individual Muhammad Alawi al-Maliki does not exist! On that note the page should be moved) - as well as my edits adding "al-" in front of "Maliki" wherever it is quoted (as this is his Nisba according to the sources cited - Maliki is not his surname). I hope that once you confirm the source states what I have said it stated, you will also reinstate these edits as well. ParthikS8 (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello again my friend, I am working through these issues but wanted to say in the meantime that I have NO sectarian interest in this page. I have no reason to paint this man either positively or negatively. None whatsoever. I don’t belong to his school of though or to a rival school. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Ok, dear friend, go ahead and reinstate your edits. I won’t revert. Might I please ask you only to keep the sources template. Can you live with that? Thank you kindly for your collegiality. Best regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)
 * Ahmad Baba al-Timbukti ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Ahmad_Baba_al-Timbukti check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Ahmad_Baba_al-Timbukti?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added links pointing to Usul and Race
 * Muhammad al-Maghili ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Muhammad_al-Maghili check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Muhammad_al-Maghili?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Berber

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab
Don't remove sourced content and informations from reliable references; the next time, check out the sources.--GenoV84 (talk) 10:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * At first I thought you'd made a genuine misunderstanding and had mistook me for the IP editor who vandalised the page both before and after me, given your edit summary. But no it seems you are referring to me, given the content you replaced.


 * Just to make it clear, I'm not a new editor and am thoroughly aware of the rules governing sourcing. I also did clearly check the sources before making my edits, as reflected by my edit summaries. Moreover, even if I was a newcomer you are not supposed to be harsh. I reflect this in my own practice with IPs/inexperienced editors.


 * Also, on a sidenote, if you want to add a more professional warning on someone's user page, I would suggest using twinkle, rather than adding a somehat terse comment.


 * As I have not breached any actual policy and as this dispute has more to do with the content/wording in the article, I will illucidate my points on why your reversion was mistaken on the article's talk page, not on here.


 * Happy editing, ParthikS8 (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I replied on the Talk page.--GenoV84 (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestions, I posted my reply on the Talk page.--GenoV84 (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia
Thanks for identifying the source of the material in your edit.

This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved. S Philbrick (Talk)  21:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, will hopefully remember to do this in the future. ParthikS8 (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Isra'iliyyat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bukhari.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Muqatil ibn Sulayman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ibn Hajar.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)