User talk:24.126.244.19

July 2020

Hello, I'm Naypta. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Relics of Muhammad, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

January 2021

Hello. I noticed in your edits to Umayyad Caliphate you have continually added the word "Arab" preceding "Umayyad Caliphate" and "Umayyad dynasty". I have reverted these edits. They are not necessary, as it is once redundant to describe them as Arab and not fully accurate with regards to the actual Caliphate. Al Ameer (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you consider it unnecessary that readers not already aware of the Umayyads Arab ethnicity should become exposed to that fact. What is your goal? There is no Redundancy here. The Umayyads were not referred to as Arab in the article and definitely not in the introduction which is needed to inform the reader of the background of the ruling dynasty whom expanded this empire.--24.126.244.19 (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect. Template:Historical Arab states and dynasties is in the WP:LEAD. Anyway, this discussion belongs at Talk:Umayyad Caliphate. Make your arguments for including this in the MOS:FIRSTSENTENCE, before the MOS:BOLDTITLE, there. TompaDompa (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether we should write out in the article that the Umayyads were Arabs. There is indeed a lot to be said about the Umayyad Caliphate and Umayyad dynastic rule, which was mainly by Arabs and, in practice, mainly for the Arabs' benefit. The issue is that this is not the appropriate place to mention this. We do not write, for a comparable example, the "Greek Byzantine Empire" or the "Latin Roman Empire" or the "Persian Sasanian Empire", etc. And wherever it is mentioned in the article, besides the first sentence of the lead or the lead in general, it needs to be mentioned in the appropriate context and with reliable sources. You are now edit-warring. To avoid a potential block, please self-revert and discuss on the article's talk page. Al Ameer (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I find it important to specify their background is for informational purposes. It is unnecessary to send any reader on a goose chase to try and retrieve that simple detail in the event that they were interested in general knowledge or for research work. Ency Britannica starts the Umayyads article with "First great Muslim dynasty to rule the Empire of the Caliphate (AD 661–750), sometimes referred to as the Arab kingdom" . You can add that or Just leave the "Arab Umayyad Dynasty" as a quick reference to the dynasty's ethnicity. About the Sassanid Empire, on Wikipedia it starts with: "officially known as the Empire of Iranians and called the Neo-Persian Empire". It would be strange if someone removes those descriptions repeatedly from that article as you're doing with Arab Umayyads.

This discussion should be moved to the article talk page. Your Brittanica example, not that we follow Brittanica, does not support this specific case. And as for the "Arab kingdom", this is certainly a very outdated terminology and applies to the Caliphate from the time of Abu Bakr to the demise of the Umayyads in 750. Although I cannot be certain, I assume the Empire of Iranians and Neo-Persian Empire are alternative common names for what is much more commonly called the Sasanian or Sassanid Empire. That is not the point here, anyway. It is not in proper form to add an ethnic descriptor, or any descriptor, before the title of the article. There is no common alternative name for the Umayyad Caliphate called the "Arab Umayyad Caliphate" or for the Umayyad dynasty called the "Arab Umayyad dynasty". Again, please self-revert and discuss on talk page, or your edit-warring will be reported. Al Ameer (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Edit warring on Umayyad Caliphate

Your recent editing history at Umayyad Caliphate shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. TompaDompa (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Your recent editing history at Sarah shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Germane policy is WP:NOR. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No original research of Ancient or Medieval sources

Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 244#Gospel of John. Read it slowly and carefully and you'll find out why is it of application. If WP:CHOPSY say that the Bible is wrong something, so says Wikipedia. WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies to giving the lie to those universities, especially when they all toe the same line. I oppose WP:PROFRINGE in our articles. You may read the full rationale at WP:NOBIGOTS.

For Wikipedia, WP:FRINGE is what WP:CHOPSY say it's fringe, not what the Christian Church says it's fringe.

Ancient documents and artifacts referring to the Bible may only be analyzed by mainstream Bible scholars (usually full professors from reputable, mainstream universities), as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Your own analysis is unwanted, also, my own analysis is unwanted, and so on, this applies to each and every editor. Wikipedia is not a website for ventilating our own personal opinions.

Wikipedia editors have to WP:CITE WP:SOURCES. That's the backbone of writing all Wikipedia articles. Talk pages of articles are primarily meant for discussing WP:SOURCES.

Original research and original synthesis are prohibited in all their forms as a matter of website policy. Repeated trespassers of such rule will be blocked by website administrators.

Being a Wikipedian means you are a volunteer, not that you are free to write whatever you please. See WP:NOTFREESPEECH and WP:FREE. Same as K12 teachers, Wikipedians don't have academic freedom. Tgeorgescu (talk) 30 June 2021 11:06:17 (UTC)

July 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Sarah, you may be blocked from editing. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

December 2021

Hello, I'm JPxG. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Zainab bint Muhammad, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. jp×g 06:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

Hello, I'm Adakiko. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Timeline of Jerusalem, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Adakiko (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Hi! In your edit summaries on Philip the Arab, your statements about sources seem quite at variance with Wikipedia policies. Recent secondary sources are perfectly fine, as long as they are reliable. Your demand for ancient sources seems to be asking for PRIMARY sources, which in general should NOT be used on Wikipedia, especially in a case like this where the information in a primary source would need to be evaluated by an editor. We prefer secondary sources, in which primary information has already been evaluated, analyzed and summarized. Please read WP:PRIMARY and ensure that you are familiar with our sourcing policies when you make further edits here. CodeTalker (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources can be recent unless there is a dispute about the claim. A recent source is no more than an opinion. There were no sources from the time of the actual happening claiming that indeed the individuals were such and such. You cannot just claim that a kneeling person in a sculpture or drawing must belong to a certain ethnic group when there is no clear indication or claim from that time that he or she is or is not. For example, try to insert the following into wikipedia's content with recent claims (you said recent claims, right?):

- Isaac is the son of a servant, not Ishmael.

- The people of Hagar the Egyptian and mother of Ishmael built massive monumental structures and one of the world's great civilizations.

- Abraham and Sarah built a tent made out of rags that was raised with a dried up tree branch.

- They owned a few goats and a couple of camels. Their status in Egypt wasn't much more than slaves or wandering vagabonds. No way they owned a slave that was Egyptian. Abraham would have been enslaved or killed for just saying that he wanted to own an Egyptian slave.

- Sarah was a concubine in Egypt (taken from Abraham without regard to his acceptance or refusal). Any of Sarah's masters could have been a relative of Hagar the mother of Ishmael.

- Sarah could not have children, so she gave a slave girl (most likely Semitic) to give birth to Isaac.

- Sarah herself was the daughter of a slave girl in what is now Iraq (requires research).

- Hagar the Egyptian made Abraham circumcise all males in his camp because this was an Egyptian custom before Abraham was even born. It wasn't that God ordered him to do so as a symbol of a covenant with him.

- 4 out of 12 sons of Israel (Jacob) were children of servant handmaid girls according to the old testament (4 out of the 12 tribes of Israel are children of servant women).

If you can't incorporate the above into Wiki's sections concerning these events while they are indeed facts that are obvious, how can you list that a sculpture of an unknown person is Philip the Arab without sources that back that recent claim that is an opinion. He could have been a Hebrew submitting to the Persians to insure the safety of his people. We don't have a record that let us know whom the individuals in the sculpture are. 24.126.244.19 (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is irrelevant. Please read WP:RS and stop deleting cited material from articles. Furius (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as done at Philip the Arab.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Favonian (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

February 2022

That Zheng He was a Eunuch is mentioned in multiple sources. It does not have to cite a Chinese source. Any source considered a wp:reliable source is sufficient. Suggest discussion on a talk page. Adakiko (talk) 11:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to have a few of the sources so that I can look them up. That's all. can you provide some? A source can be questionable for many reasons. Just having a book published doesn't mean the claims within are facts. 24.126.244.19 (talk) 11:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are cited in the articles. Adakiko (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.