User talk:21fafs

Welcome!

Hi 21fafs! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

Hi 21fafs! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at List of films considered the best that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. TompaDompa (talk) 07:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that we only care that sources are reliable, your religious beliefs are irrelevant

And attempts to delete or change material can get you blocked. Doug Weller talk 21:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug, my religion has nothing to do with the edit I made. The article is called "Noah in Islam", not "Noah in the Ahmadiyya Faith." The source that was used to back up the claims there may be sufficient for the beliefs about Noah in the Ahmadiyya faith, but not so for Islam. Feel free to suggest a "Noah in the Ahmadiyya faith" article if you wish. 21fafs (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Ahmadiyya sources clearly can't speak for all of Islam. No Islamic sect can. I wasn't bothered about that but about your removal of "pre-Islamic" on faith based grounds even when that is what the source says. We are a secular encyclopedia. Now I have to waste precious time reverting you if you've changed source text. Doug Weller talk 07:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why does your removal of "pre-Islamic incorrectly say " Also, the link does not say "pre-Islamic"

I'm baffled. The source says on p2, per the citation, "From The |Pre|-|Islamlc\ Era; Muhammad's Childhood And Earl’ Manhood". Doug Weller talk 07:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain. on Enos (biblical figure), there is a link to Qisas al-Anbiya (Tales of the Prophets). "Qisas al-Anbiya" does not translate to " tales of the pre-Islamic prophets", and the phrase "pre-Islamic" is not found on the article, yet that is what the text on Enos (biblical figure) reads. I edited it to "tales of the prophets." The phrase "pre-Islamic" is not found on Qisas al-Anbiya. As such, your revert makes no sense. The word "pre-Islamic" is unfounded for this context. 21fafs (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s in the source, that’s what matters. Doug Weller talk 18:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:EASTEREGG

“ about Islamic” hides the fact that the link goes to about Pre-Islamic Arabia.[1] im not sure what to do about your edits. Doug Weller talk 18:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that seems to be a mistake. You can change the link to link to Islam rather than to “pre-Islamic Arabia.” “Pre-Islamic Arabia” (which is an actual thing) doesn’t make sense on in the context on that page because Jesus (peace be upon him) didn’t live in Arabia. 21fafs (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Welcome!

Hi 21fafs! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

I've noticed that you've expressed an interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Unfortunately, due to a history of conflict and disruptive editing it has been designated a contentious topic and is subject to some strict rules.

The rule that affects you most as a new or IP editor is the prohibition on making any edit related to the Arab–Israel conflict unless you are logged into an account and that account is at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits.

This prohibition is broadly construed, so it includes edits such as adding the reaction of a public figure concerning the conflict to their article or noting the position of a company or organization as it relates to the conflict.

The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article on the talk page of that article or at this page. Please ensure that your requested edit complies with our neutral point of view and reliable sourcing policies, and if the edit is about a living person our policies on biographies of living people as well.

Any edits you make contrary to these rules are likely to be reverted, and repeated violations can lead to you being blocked from editing.