User talk:TheEagle107

Adding articles to categories
Hi, you've been adding a large number of articles to Category:Supporters of Ibn Arabi, which you recently created. At least some of the articles you added to that category, such as Baybars, make no mention of the subject's relation to Ibn Arabi. As stated at Categorization (see WP:CATV section in particular), the categories of an article must still be verifiable in the article itself. That means there should be content in the article itself, supported by reliable sources, that makes it clear that the article belongs in that category. Please do not add articles to categories if they lack that content; even if you know that they should be there, the article should be updated first. (Suggestion: you can leave a comment on the article's talk page if you don't have the time and resources to do this yourself; future editors may be able to do it instead and add the category later.) R Prazeres (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Support
Hello, TheEagle107 and welcome back! It's heart-warming to see you again. I've made several new threads and wondering if you could help me get them the tag for Authority control database. These are: Al-Kiya al-Harrasi, Muhammad bin Husayn al-Sulami, Abu Muhammad al-Juwayni, Al-Halimi and Jamal al-Din al-Isnawi. Thanks! Ayaltimo (talk) 12:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Well, honestly, I have no experience in this field, but I did my best. 😃 PS: The template draws its values from Wikidata. For more info, see: H:AC, & WP:VIAF. Please also see: WP:ILL & watch this video on Wikimedia Commons:

You are most welcome, anytime. Best regards.--TheEagle107 (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Wow, you thanked me for my User page! Never had that happen before. It's a nice form of support. Martindo (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello I liked what you wrote about yourself and your life. One of my biggest dreams is to travel the world and see all of the amazing things it has to offer, especially where there is sea, warm sun, and good, kind people. For example, I would like to visit Phuket in Thailand and Bali in Indonesia. Let me take this opportunity to tell you something weird: throughout my life, I've been seeing Asians women are not pretty, but recently I've started to like Japanese and Korean women in particular and find them attractive in some way. 😃 Have a good day and take care. With respect and appreciation.--TheEagle107 (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the barnstar. Most of my work here is 99.99% editing. I actually forgot that I created some pages. In the case of Sunan Drajat, I actually had never heard of him but decided he needed a page after reading about him on Wali Songo which I spent a lot of time editing some years ago. Martindo (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, TheEagle107 and I hope you're doing well. I just wanted to ask you a favour if you could help me and produce two images of book covers for Al-Asma' wa al-Sifat and a new article I just published today Jam' al-Jawami'. The second one is lacking tags too. :/ All the best! Ayaltimo (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2024 (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) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Tanbih al-Ghabi bi-Tabri'at Ibn 'Arabi External links in the body
Hi, I was reviewing your article here. I fixed it a bit so the spacing around the ref/notes area is a bit better organised. I notice your using external links in the body of the article. These are strictly illegal and are considered disruptive editing. In this case here I turn them into references. Do not use them from this point forward. If your using them in articles can you remove them. They are great article apart from that. Great series of articles indeed!!  scope_creep Talk  13:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

 * Thank you so much for your kind, encouraging words. Your support means the world to me! Words can't express my gratitude for your thoughtfulness, consideration, and appreciation to my efforts. I really appreciate it! You have just made my day and lifted my spirits! Thank you, thank you, thank you! 🙏 TheEagle107 (talk) 06:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

My apologies
Careless of me. Thank you for pointing that out. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

My opinion

 * Some similar opinion I had given on VFF's talk page too.
 * See my view has been that shifting focus from content to personal concerns benefits the accuser to take content dispute off the track. Solution is from your side give primacy to content dispute and take the discussion back to the track again at earliest.
 * About personal side usually best solution meet impatience of accuser with patience. Address legitimate concerns so the other side would have less scope to continue off the track.
 * Refactoring requests
 * Where personal accusations are clearly factually wrong, arrogant or insulting Wikipedia has a discussion culture where in you reach out to such user at their talk page with section heading 'Refactoring requests'. Cite their specific objectionable difs, mention your concern and request them to correct their sentences. After coming such request a user is generally expected to do self introspection and drop their stick and correct their improper mentions and sentences.
 * If they don't do leave it their for future users who are similarly affected from similar behavior shall take them to the task at appropriate forum with list of improper behaviour and then community warns. In my point of view this is smarter to save our own time, stress and focus.
 * I hope you would find my suggestions helpful enough.

Once you go through WP:RFC content issues will get resolved any ways. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 13:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed RfC
see what you think of |this sandbox RfC for the Jinn article dispute, I just posted. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Good.👍 Short and direct.👌 But I think the title is a bit long, so I suggest deleting the phrase “according to some Muslims.” I do understand that this wording is for the sake of neutrality, which unfortunately has no place in the content of the current article. In fact, there are a large number of primary and secondary sources that confirm that the vast majority of Muslims consider belief in jinn as necessary and essential. Anyway, your real RfC must include all the sources you have to confirm this. Here are some additional sources that will make your argument stronger and more difficult to deny, ignore or sideline:

Also, check out the book “The Essentials of the Islamic Faith” by Fethullah Gülen (here & here).

There are also other sources, but the sources mentioned in the previous discussions are sufficiently enough to clarify the issue, and prove that the opposing opinion is merely WP:FRINGE. Good luck and all the best.TheEagle107 (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Pre-RfC couple of points
@TheEagle107 and @Louis P. Boog

Sorry, my own talk page is overflowing due to my own laziness in archiving it. So updating few points as discussion facilitator here.


 * Responses @ Talk:Jinn of @TheEagle107 and VFF seem helpful as synopsis too. Though I was expecting a little short and specific answer from TheEagle107, as we go to RfCs avoid repetitions be concise and specific as much possible, if your answer is becoming larger use collapse template.


 * @Louis P. Boog I had to paraphrase User:Louis P. Boog/sandbox/Jinn sandbox 4-20-2024 to be on safer side temporarily due to CR concerns expressed by VFF. You can re-paraphrase or copy edit those before we begin RfC.
 * You have one VFF's an OR concern to be addressed @ Talk:Jinn or leave it for RfC


 * I initiated WP:RSN, after this RSN conclusion we shall discuss RfC formatting at new subsection of Talk:Jinn and at that stage you may wish to invite DRN moderator admin User:Robert McClenon to help in formulating neutral question for the RfC.

I hope these tips help in a smooth RfC. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * and Please make yourselves at home and enjoy the discussions! 🙂TheEagle107 (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Tag related discussion at NPOVN
@TheEagle107

1) RfC questions are not comprehensive enough, what I suggest is write section wise summary in your own words that will benefit you in multiple ways including better formation of RFC questions.

2) It's almost six days at NPOVN and some how topic could not attract any independent inputs yet.

There are three ways, First drop the idea of placing POV templates, Second relist NPOVN in new subsection and wait for another week, third Create an RfC there itself, fourth wait for what Talk:Jinn RfC says.

Since there is no express support for POV tag at NPOVN so my advice is to drop the idea of POV tagging since Wikipedians generally do not seem to support POV tagging of the articles. But last decision is yours how much to pursue for the same.

&#32;Bookku   (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, since User:Louis P. Boog is not active much online recently, so I think it would be more appropriate to create a separate RfC on my own (see Multiple RfCs on one page). Anyway, thank you so much for your kind and thoughtful assistance and guidance, MUCH appreciated! 🙏 Best regards.--TheEagle107 (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @&#32;Bookku   @TheEagle107
 * I'm back. Was distracted. Where are we with RfC? I recall writing a tentative RfC for Bookku's approval. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Jinn issue
Hope you have not abandoned the Jinn RfC. I am ready to wrok on it when you come back. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Reported
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Friendly advice
@TheEagle107

Greetings, I would have preferred to share following peer advice -based on your contributions related to the article Jinn when you are around, you seem to be on edit break since June 2 - some points you might have improved but for brevity I am mentioning again- I hope you will go through following points as and when you join back.


 * By now you know importance so maintain your focus on reliable academic sources.
 * Your mentions of relevant reliable academic sources are coming in random and scattered manner in various sections and different different talk pages. You need to improve in relevant references are available in right discussion at right time to get right attention.
 * If you are making mentions of non-academic sources let others know purpose of such mentions more clearly to avoid misunderstandings. Get confirmed contested sources from WP:RSN.
 * Besides I have already suggested to update in own sandbox the way LPB did that helps other users to understand your expectations more clearly. Also always write 'Non-personalised' summaries of discussions points - proper summary before RfC can be grate aid.
 * Preferably discuss the neutral RfC question even with opposing side to take them into confidence, and take assistance of experienced RfC writing users from WT:RfC.
 * Your RfC was neutral but mixed of multiple things like Info-box issue, Section heading, and considering all paragraphs together - issues should be distinctly identifiable so input givers can express opinions separately on each issue. Present win all or loose all policy unhelpful to your own goals.


 * Avoid over all haste, personalization, and temptation of reverts. Specially when a discussion is ongoing avoid updating/ reverting article without very clear consensus.
 * I suppose edits to info-boxes are WP:CTOP area everyone need to follow editing guidelines more meticulously and avoid edit wars.
 * Other users expected you to take note of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, WP:HUSH and WP:RNPOV.
 * Practice yourself and make other users practice to limit content dispute on article talk page and personal altercations on user talk page.
 * Do not make input requests from other users randomly - that can be misconstrued as canvassing.
 * The article, article talk page, relevant topic related articles or from related categories, related project pages - when you invite invite all active users

As above mentioned some points you are likely to have improved but for brevity I am mentioning again- I hope you will go through above points as and when you join back that helps your and Wikipedia's growth. Happy editing. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 07:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)