User talk:Simpatico qa

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Simpatico qa, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

August 2015
Hello, I'm MrOllie. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links.  MrOllie (talk) 12:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Your suggestion
I saw what you wrote in the editsummary of this edit. I also saw the site, and it is in English, even if the maps aren't. What maps page did you have in mind? Debresser (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Undid edit
Hello! Just to let you know, I undid your recent edit to Wikipedia talk:Protection policy, as that's not the place to discuss edits to protected pages. Perhaps you meant to post it to Talk:Linda Sarsour? ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 19:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette
Greetings. When responding to comments on talk pages, please indent your comments using colons, and don't forget to sign your posts using four tildes. This helps others to follow the discussion. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring
Hi Simpatico qa,

You have been reverting multiple different edits of mine at 110 Squadron (Israel). Please note that edit warring is no a way to solve issues on Wikipedia. If your first edit was reverted, you should use the talk page to sort it out. Edit-warring repeatedly may leader to a block.

Regarding the issue itself, please explain on the talk page why the link to the RAF squadron is relevant in See Also, while the US 110th Bomb Squadron is not relevant, for example. Note that both appear in the disambiguation page 110 Squadron.

—Ynhockey (Talk) 06:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Your article الديون: أول 5000 سنة
Welcome, and thank you for contributing the page الديون: أول 5000 سنة to Wikipedia. While you have added the page to the English version of Wikipedia, the article is not in English. We invite you to translate it into English. It has been listed at Pages Needing Translation, but if it is not translated within two weeks, the article will be listed for deletion. Thank you. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    09:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Your contributed article, الديون: أول 5000 سنة


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, الديون: أول 5000 سنة. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Debt: The First 5000 Years. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Debt: The First 5000 Years. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Largoplazo (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The Bottom Line (US Politics TV programme) moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, The Bottom Line (US Politics TV programme), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Bottom Line (US Politics TV programme) (March 6)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by KylieTastic were:

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:The Bottom Line (US Politics TV programme) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:The Bottom Line (US Politics TV programme), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * 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=Draft:The_Bottom_Line_(US_Politics_TV_programme) Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KylieTastic&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:The_Bottom_Line_(US_Politics_TV_programme) reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 09:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Bottom Line (US Politics TV programme) (September 26)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

The comment the reviewer left 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:The Bottom Line (US Politics TV programme) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:The Bottom Line (US Politics TV programme), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * 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=Draft:The_Bottom_Line_(US_Politics_TV_programme) Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KylieTastic&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:The_Bottom_Line_(US_Politics_TV_programme) reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:The Bottom Line (US Politics TV programme)
Hello, Simpatico qa. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Bottom Line (US Politics TV programme), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:The Bottom Line (US Politics TV programme)


Hello, Simpatico qa. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "The Bottom Line".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! S0091 (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

December 2023
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Abd Allah ibn Sa'd. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. — Kaalakaa  (talk)  03:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Do you accept this page on Al Jazeera as a reliable source for the edit? https://www.aljazeeramubasher.net/news/miscellaneous/2022/10/31/%D9%85%D9%86-%D9%87%D9%88-%D8%A3%D8%B4%D9%87%D8%B1-%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%AA%D8%AF-%D9%85%D9%86-%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%A8%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88%D8%AD%D9%8A-%D9%88%D9%85%D8%A7-%D9%87%D9%8A Simpatico qa (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That seems to be an interview with an Islamic scholar. Dear Simpatico qa, please read WP:SOURCE, which is one of our policies. It states:
 * What is meant by "independent" here according to WP:IIS is:
 * This means that, for example, apologetic writings by Aum Shinrikyo followers should not be used as sources for topics about their founder or the history related to their religion because they clearly do not meet these criteria. The same must apply to other religions. The types of sources we need for articles on topics like this are those from secular academia. Furthermore, we also have the WP:OR policy, which forbids original research; please read it thoroughly as well. —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  15:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems we are in a catch-22. We cannot cite Islamic scholars to say what they think about this Islamic story, but we can cite the story from "Asbab al-nuzul" which is an islamic source written by some scholars, and as I'm trying to say is not accepted by all and shouldn't be treated as irrefutable. I would say either both sources are invalid (so remove the story) or accept both perspectives. Otherwise you end up with the misinformation of the page which presents the story as undisputed truth and offers no space for qualification of the story (I had added those but were reverted) and no info on the disputes - which are noteworthy. Simpatico qa (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Asbabun Nuzul, Hadith, Sira and the like are primary sources, in this case sources close to the time of the event. We can use primary sources to a certain extent with extreme caution. And to avoid WP:OR, any form of analysis, evaluation, interpretation or synthesis must be based on secondary sources from secular scholarship (see WP:PSTS and WP:SOURCES). Anyway, having had a quick look at the sources, I do find it rather problematic. I'm pretty busy lately and it's not high on my list of priorities, but I'll see what I can do later. —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  22:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems we are in a catch-22. We cannot cite Islamic scholars to say what they think about this Islamic story, but we can cite the story from "Asbab al-nuzul" which is an islamic source written by some scholars, and as I'm trying to say is not accepted by all and shouldn't be treated as irrefutable. I would say either both sources are invalid (so remove the story) or accept both perspectives. Otherwise you end up with the misinformation of the page which presents the story as undisputed truth and offers no space for qualification of the story (I had added those but were reverted) and no info on the disputes - which are noteworthy. Simpatico qa (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Asbabun Nuzul, Hadith, Sira and the like are primary sources, in this case sources close to the time of the event. We can use primary sources to a certain extent with extreme caution. And to avoid WP:OR, any form of analysis, evaluation, interpretation or synthesis must be based on secondary sources from secular scholarship (see WP:PSTS and WP:SOURCES). Anyway, having had a quick look at the sources, I do find it rather problematic. I'm pretty busy lately and it's not high on my list of priorities, but I'll see what I can do later. —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  22:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)