User talk:Vice regent/Archives/2020/July

Balance: Parents for and against their children entering the Devshirme

 * Hello, thank you for showing interest in debating this article. I really believe we can now improve this article thanks to your intervention. Firstly thank you for assuming good faith even if your post on my page heavily hinted at the opposite (deceptive?). It is understandable however. You were correct on the links, the old link I assumed was still in use has been removed or used in another section that described Albanian and Bosnian families volunteering their sons. This is one of the links I assumed was still in use which describes exactly what I stated: So you see, there was nothing deceptive as your good faith hinted at - I just didn't check that this link was still in use in this intro. You see the use of 'Christians and muslims' volunteering their sons - is too general. There is no evidence of a single Greek doing this for example. As wikipedians you and I should seek to give the most precise information possible. So although the general term of Christians/muslims volunteering their children on occasion should be used and it is vital that is, anything more precise and specific - like this from William Gervase Clarence-Smith should also be used, as this link clearly states - Albanians and Bosnians did volunteer their children: . There are other books also describing the motivation Bosnians had to enter their children into the system. Over 1000 sent directly to Istanbul here! I would like your help to add this particular reference to the article if possible. To summarize, article has been much changed over the years due to its sensitivity and I assumed the useful links editors such as yourself like to use in the article had not changed - however they have. I have rewritten the paragraph taking into the account your all your observations (I think you reverted my edits anyway before making your way to my talk page) and luckily - I have actually found a contemporary source by Paolo Giovio that I am sure will please you describing the lengths some parents would go to avoid their sons being taken to counter the volunteering admission and to give some much needed balance to this vitally important paragraph. Again, thank you for bringing all this to my attention and I think thanks to your intervention, we can make this article a lot more balanced. Tell me what you think:


 * Ottoman soldiers would take Christian males, ages 8 to 20, from Eastern and Southeastern Europe and relocate them to Istanbul, where they would be trained. The fact many were taken forcibly from their parents has been the subject to criticism. According to contemporary Paolo Giovio, parents of the enslaved would utlise 'hard alternatives' to save their children from bribing Ottoman officials or converting their children to Islam to mutilating their own children. However there are reports according to modern authors William L Cleveland and David Nicolle of Muslim and Christian families also volunteering their sons for the service as it offered good career options, specifically Albanians and Bosnians according to William Gervase Clarence-Smith. Recruits often visited their families, and used their positions to help them. The boys were force converted to Islam. Muslims were not allowed into the system (with some exceptions), but some Muslim families smuggled their sons in anyway.

Reaper7 (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive edits in Islam and domesic abuse
The user Mcphurphy has decided to revert the changes I made he ignores and focuses on one school of thought and only by taking the opinion of a few hanafi scholars which he selectively uses even in his sources the user ayesha choudoury mentions other opinions to which he ignores here is the source book: https://www.pdfdrive.com/domestic-violence-and-the-islamic-tradition-e175335161.html Arsi786 (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I saw that (I have extensively edited An-Nisa, 34) and was going to look into the sources soon. However, you shouldn't message just one user like this. You can post on the article's talk page, or if you want to attract outside attention that send messages that include users of all viewpoints.VR talk  14:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I have a topic ban so I can't get invloved Arsi786 (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

McMurphy
Vice Regent there's this account too if you're going ahead with your investigation though I'm not too good at these matters and not sure if this is helpful. [] SharabSalaam would have solved this issue long ago if he was still active. If it wasn't for him I'd still be writing walls of texts arguing with Koreangauteng.

Similarities:

Same focus on the rapacity and general unpleasantness of Islam and the marginalization of those whom argue otherwise

same usage of sources, over reliance on Kecia Ali

some quotation evidence given is the exact same (Kitab al-Maghazi) She detested him

Interactions close with Balolay too

Eperoton cites Smith's book saying "the history of abolitionism is not treated well even in the body (there's a whole book on it at Oxford University Press by Clarence-Smith)", McMurphy very heavily cherry picks it in his own article.

various conflicts with Arsi, McMurphy specifically struck immediately after Arsi got topic banned

strange addition of honorifics after Muhammad despite articulating anti-Islamic opinions? (I've lost the edit but I clearly saw it and it struck me as odd)

Article on Sexual slavery in Islam created by McMurphy after material was rejected in other articles (POV fork?)

I don't think Dr Silverstein is Mcmurphy unless he is playing advanced chess by arguing with himself to throw off his trail. 39.37.181.243 (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * These are the contributions from 14.203.129.249. It would be ok for Mcphurphy to edit as an IP before account creation. But it would be a a violation of WP:HAND for Bolanigak to make non-disruptive edits while logged in, but then logging out to make disruptive ones on the very same day.VR talk  18:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. Still curious if it is him here. Cheers.39.37.181.243 (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:2020 Iran explosions
Hi, I'm currently constructing an article on 2020 explosions in Iran. Please feel free to participate. If you believe it is good enough feel free to move the draft into an article. IvanSidorenko1 (talk) 11:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC

"Urdudaan" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Urdudaan. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 18 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Toddy1 (talk) 05:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Good call
Good call about Balolay. The socks have been confirmed and are awaiting administrator action. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you for your work. Glad we can put this behind us now.VR talk  17:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I also praise and thank you for your contribution at WP:SPI. Hope that he/she will learn a lesson from this. But I've a question from you that how did you come to know that an investigation is happening and that this user has another sockpuppet account. No problem if you don't want to tell. Thank you. Empire AS  Talk! 03:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I saw the same diff that you saw where both accounts made an identical comment. Then I checked the WP:SPI page.VR talk  15:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Concubinage in Islam
You have already been asked to refrain from introducing new changes without achieving consensus on Concubinage in Islam. I have let this edit pass but you should realise that unilateral changes hamper consensus building. You should also stop creating new sections on talkpages just to repeat discussions from previous sections. That borders on WP:GAMING. Mcphurphy (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Isaiah McKinnon
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Take this to admin noticeboard
Vice it seems we must take this to the admin notice page to deal With this issue last time the admin who put protection on said take it to the notice board mc doesn’t about being honest this is the only way I don’t know much about wikipedia at this very moment maybe you could start something as you can only edit a wiki article that has been protected by going to admin noticeboard. CircassianBilyal (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * you really need to start engaging on the talk page. It seems English may not be your first language, but that's ok, you should still leave a message on the talk page. Even if you feel you're repeating yourself, still leave a message on the talk page.VR talk  19:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I will after the ban CircassianBilyal (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Hagia Sophia; 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. GPinkerton (talk) 03:24, 24 July 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.

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. GPinkerton (talk) 04:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hagia Sophia
There is no benefit to this feuding. You should withdraw your spurious report and resolve this dispute amicably. This is about content. GPinkerton (talk) 05:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)