User talk:Snowsky Mountain

Samsung
hi

i saw what you did to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Gear article. i appreciate you taking the time to add in all the details to the original list. before it was just a couple of bullet point lines of the names and then the second section below where it was a small blurb on only some of the watches, i decided to delete that just leave the list of links so people choose to go to the article they want, instead of reading a short orphaned blurb on that page just below the list. what you did was integrate the small writings sections below to the list above, now it is more readable, that is great.

YipC (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Snowsky Mountain (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I have undone your cut and paste page move
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Hadith of warning  a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Da'wat dhul-Ashira. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Requests for history merge. Thank you. VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 22:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello VibeScepter, thank you for letting me know about this function! I appreciate your help regarding this issue. Best, Snowsky Mountain (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Huawei Mate series, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CES ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Huawei_Mate_series check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Huawei_Mate_series?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know! I just fixed that. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited LG G series, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sprint ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/LG_G_series check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/LG_G_series?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! I just fixed that. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Take part in a survey
Hi Snowsky Mountain

We're working to measure the value of Wikipedia in economic terms. We want to ask you some questions about how you value being able to edit Wikipedia.

Our survey should take about 10-15 minutes of your time. We hope that you will enjoy it and find the questions interesting. All answers will be kept strictly confidential and will be anonymized before the aggregate results are published. Regretfully, we can only accept responses from people who live in the US due to restrictions in our grant-based funding.

As a reward for your participation, we will randomly pick 1 out of every 5 participants and give them $25 worth of goods of their choice from the Wikipedia store (e.g. Wikipedia themed t-shirts). Note that we can only reward you if you are based in the US.

Click here to access the survey: https://mit.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eXJcEhLKioNHuJv

Thanks

Avi

Researcher, MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy --Avi gan (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Succession to Muhammad into Umar at Fatimah's house. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, thank you for the information! I had been the original author of that material (although there may have been minor copy-edits by other authors in the interim). I will keep this in mind for the future, however! Snowsky Mountain (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Unreliable sources and Edit Summaries
Hello Snowsky Mountain

Yesterday I noticed that you removed my edits on Yazid I, without edit summary. Since you are not a new editor, you are supposed to provide edit summaries. Secondly, your edit history shows that you are inclined to include references to unreliable religious websites with mother-load of POV. For example, al-islam.org is a user generated website, which any registered editor can edit. You should know that User Generated Content is not allowed as source on wikipedia. I was shocked when you replaced Madelung and Tabarai with al-islam.org and cifiaonline.com in. Can you please explain what compelled you to do so? Thank you.  AhmadLX  ( talk ) 16:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, that edit that you mentioned was simply me undoing some intermediary edits. As you can clearly see, my edit (or reversion, rather) was because a significant amount of relevant content had been deleted. My edit was to undo that deletion and restore the older version of the page, as that page has seen vandalism before. As for al-islam.org, that is a reputable website that includes content from other publications. It is not simply user-generated content, and is no less reputable than Tabari (which could be considered a religious source, like al-islam.org). I apologize for not providing an edit summary for that edit on Yazid I; as I mentioned before, that edit was to restore the page to an older version as relevant content had been removed. I will try to be more careful in the future. Best, Snowsky Mountain (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you wanted to revert the deletion by the IP, which came after my revision, you could have simply undid his revision. But you went to restore the revision earlier to my edits. Also, the deletion by IP was justified to some extent, as it was strong POV with phrases like "infamous for killing Husayn" and "destroying the Kaaba". As such, your intention seems to undo my edits as well, and put back in the unreliable sources and POV stuff you had previously included. And this is not the first time you have done so. Previously, you had  POV at Husayn ibn Ali that I had  earlier. al-islam.org is editable, you can edit it by registering an account, just like Wikipedia, RationalWiki or Conservapedia. These sources can not be used to support anything on Wikipedia, except when something is added about these sites. Tabari, on the other hand, is a historical work, not a religious book pushing a religious doctrine.  AhmadLX  ( talk ) 18:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * How are phrases like "infamous for killing Husayn" and "destroying the Kaaba" POV? If someone destroyed the Kaaba, then the phrase "destroying the Kaaba" is a perfectly acceptable statement to describe that person's actions. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:LABEL. Also bring the neutral and reliable sources that say "He destroyed Kaaba". If you find one, explain "according to XYZ(s) he destroyed Kaaba" rahter than portraying that Wikipedia considers him having done that, unless there is consensus among historians that he did it.  AhmadLX  ( talk ) 19:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a general consensus that he did; there's even an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to that: Siege of Mecca (683). Snowsky Mountain (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * He sent the army to recapture the city. I will rephrase it for you: Bring the sources that say "Yazid sent army to destroy Kaaba" or that "Kaaba was destroyed on his orders".  AhmadLX  ( talk ) 19:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, the article you mentioned, states (and I have verified from the sources cited) that it is disputed if Syrians burned the Kaaba. According to some sources it was Syrians, according to others it was Meccans who inadvertently did this. If you notice, the article doesn't take sides, instead it presents the view points. That is NPOV.  AhmadLX  ( talk ) 19:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

please explain
Please reply to my comment on Talk:Umar at Fatimah's house. Smatrah (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. The thread is Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard.  AhmadLX  ( talk ) 22:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019
Hello, I'm AhmadLX. Your recent edit to the page Uthman appears to have added incorrect information, so it has been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.  AhmadLX - )¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was undoing an IP edit that removed the statement saying that Sunni sources report that Uthman pledged allegiance to Ali at Ghadir Khumm. There are already Sunni sources on that page that support that fact, such as Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal by Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Tafsir al-Kabir by Fakhr al-Din al-Razi.
 * The Sunni position on the issue is that Ali was not nominated Imam or Caliph. So when you say Uthman pledged allegiance to him "what does that mean" wrt to Sunni view? Of course by writing that you want to say that they accepted him as Caliph, Imam or whatever.  AhmadLX - )¯\_(ツ)_/¯)  20:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am simply stating what the sources say. There are multiple Sunni sources listed on that article that clearly state that Uthman pledged allegiance to Ali at Ghadir Khumm. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you verified from those sources? As far as I can see, there is no Hadith number specified. Alternative is to give full bibliographic info (edition, ISBN etc) with page number. As they stand now, they are unverifiable.  AhmadLX - )¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 02:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The volume and page number are already there. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * of which edition?  AhmadLX - )¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Saqifah copyedit
Thank you! Snowsky Mountain (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Succession to Muhammad

 * Hi Snowsky Mountain, while copy-editing I visited the article at Saqifah and found it was identical to the section in the above article (compare this with this. Since Saqifah is marked as the main article for that subject, I replaced the text there with my copy-edited text and summarized the section at Succession to Muhammad. I'll probably do the same with any other sections that have articles with identical text. Feel free to revert my actions if you wish; I won't repeat them if you do and I'll stay at Succession to Muhammad. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  01:32, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know! And thank you for all your help in copy-editing the page; I really appreciate it! Snowsky Mountain (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries; i should be back at it tomorrow. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  05:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Succession to Muhammad
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Succession to Muhammad you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Cerebellum, thanks for letting me know! However, after re-considering it, I do not know if it would be appropriate to nominate that page at this time. Is there anyway to cancel the review process for now? Best, Snowsky Mountain (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Whoops, just saw this. Unfortunately I already conducted the review.  If it's ok with you, I'll fail the article to conclude the review, with a note explaining the circumstances, and you can renominate any time.  How does that sound? --Cerebellum (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That sounds great, thanks! Snowsky Mountain (talk) 02:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sweet, if you ever renominate feel free to let me know and I can review it for you. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Notice about ANI discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta ) 21:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (second request)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Succession to Muhammad into Attack on Fatimah's house. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Diannaa, thanks for letting me know. I didn't get the content from the page Succession to Muhammad; instead, I got it from an old version of the Attack on Fatimah's house. It was content that I myself had added previously but had been removed when the entire page had been revamped. Thanks, Snowsky Mountain (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!
Wanted to appreciate that you fixed my edit, I didn't really mean to remove any information but my stupid clumsy fingers did some weird ghost magic garbage. Thanks for re-adding the diagram, though! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrustyCaverns (talk • contribs) 14:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion
Hi, ! Hope all is well with you. This proposal to rename Fatimah might be of interest to you. Please consider participating in it. If you happen to know someone else who'd support the proposal, please also let them know. Thanks! Albertatiran (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Charles III requested move discussion
There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)