User talk:Oblivy

Your edit on "Islam in Australia"

I understand your critique on highlighting WP:OR, definitely there could be room for improvement... but why were you so rude? Please read this in good faith.

"Among their primary congregations is the Ahlul-Bayt Islamic centre in Auburn, which has evolved to include the afghan and pakistani shia diaspora, making it an intercultural hub."

what part of the above is "superlatives and weasel words"? If your critique is WP:OR, thanks for the highlight, i will address it. But i picked those words specifically to reflect the reality. There is no exaggeration or bending of the truth there.

On another point: "homosexuality" vs "homosexual-actions". There is a difference in that nuance. One refers to the state of being same-sex attracted, while the other is engagement in same sex. Homosexuality refers to a human being, while actions refers to actions. For you that nuance may not make a difference, but the islamic jurisprudence is specifically that distinction.

While personally, I am not a fan of antagonising queer-folk, in relation to this specific article, this nuance matters more than your opinion. Bro The Man (talk) 08:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Your edit introduced new claims into an article without citing a reliable source. The weasel words are "among their primary congregations" and the superlative is "making it an intercultural hub."

I could see an argument that the former is not weasel words, but it clearly suggest some level of analysis about which congregations are primary and which ones are secondary. So where's the source? All you did was to link to their homepage (see WP:PRIMARY), which doesn't support what you said.

The latter is unequivocally an opinion statement, and it's a superlative in the sense that it is an exaggerated expression of the positive qualities of the institution (see WP:PUFFERY). Again, no source was given.

With respect to homosexuality vs homosexual actions, I try to avoid editing on WP:GENSEX issues and, speaking honestly, if that was the only change I wouldn't have reverted. However, the cited source exclusively uses the term homosexuality and doesn't say homosexual actions. So isn't what you're advancing just your own opinion on how the source should be interpreted?

I apologize if my words came across as rude, but I fully defend my decision to revert your change. I hope you can take this explanation to heart and wish you luck in your future editing endeavours, Oblivy (talk) 08:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Well then trust the process of the wiki-mission, those changes will get addressed adequately.

Interpretations are fundamentally subjective, such as yours and mine. I will take your critique on board re:Ahlul Bayt Islamic Centre, but believe me that those statements I published are in fact a reality. I will place them on the talk page as a place holder, for when i found better sources.

Regarding the nuance, certain words for each populace mean different things when heard. When muslims refer to homosexuality, it means specifically refers to مُمارسة المثلية ، but due to language divide and ease of communication because islam is very culturally diverse, when discussing the matter in english they generally default to "homosexuality" without the clarification that was is intended in engagement in homosexual sex and courtship... because it's a mouthful and universally humans are both lazy and emotional, regardless of ethnicity, culture, or religion. Take for example, how the orthodox church and the catholic church seem to get along and universally agree that the American evangelical is an abomination and the worst heresy of christianity because of the issues of translation and deformation of meaning despite utilising the same exact words. That's their position, I stay out of it and enjoy my popcorn.

Because you aren't (potentially) a theological scholar nor a practicing member, certain words for you and the general consensus you subscribe to mean one thing and for other's consensus it means another. I tried to help clarify that notion. I hope you understand what I'm trying to communicate. On that note, I will be returning that clarification. I appreciate you changing your tone and meeting me in the middle with common ground. Bro The Man (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Your words do not address the fundamental issue with all your edits, which is that they are not supported by reliable sources.

I notice that you are currently disputing reverts by (at least) two editors who have raised concerns about your edits. Please consider WP:3RR as you decide how to proceed. Oblivy (talk) 09:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Literally you're the only person who reverted my edits. I think you're misreading my history.

Need of better sources:

re: ahlul bayt islamic. -- i agree

re: homosexuality -- i disagree, your bias is showing and your refuse to acknowledge it despite the edit itself is the very attempt at clarification. Let me guide you to LGBT people and Islam, it does a good job of referencing the dynamic of "hate the sin, love the sinner" dynamic. No different than christianity and Judaism... afterall, it's an abrahamic religion. Bro The Man (talk) 09:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I've explained my edits. You have the option of raising this at the talk page so you can gain consensus for the change.

Note that the notice I posted at on your page is just to make sure you've been given notice of the decision of the arbitration panel WP:GENSEX, specifically that Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Since sanctions are broadly construed this probably includes parts of pages dealing with gender-related issues. Oblivy (talk) 09:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

nice, good one. Bro The Man (talk) 09:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, read the article, it's already established.

LGBT people and Islam: and navigate down to "scripture and jurisprudence". Bro The Man (talk) 09:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Revert question

I am wondering why did you remove my edit? I just added some apostraphes Cooldudeseven7 (Discuss over a cup of tea?) 13:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

You repeatedly changed Its to It's, for example in Data lineage:
- "historical record of the data and its origins" changed to "historical record of the data and It's origins"

Looking through your edits, you have a number of constructive edits over the past months. I can't imagine why you thought this was acceptable but I'm open to explanations. Oblivy (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I am very sorry for the distruption. I will never do this again! Thank you for the reminder. Cooldudeseven7 (Discuss over a cup of tea?) 13:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

If there are others, I'd encourage you to find them and change them back. I identified four instances then gave up. Oblivy (talk) 13:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I am doing that right now. Again, sorry for the distruption. Cooldudeseven7 (Discuss over a cup of tea?) 13:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I see that. Thanks for accepting the criticism and making it right. Oblivy (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I attempted to do a simple find and replace but then forgot to look at the changes. You are very welcome and I will never make this type of beginner mistake again. Cooldudeseven7 (Discuss over a cup of tea?) 14:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)