Although some prefer welcoming newcomers with cookies, I find fruit to be a healthier alternative.
Hello, NGC 628, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.
Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
Some pages that have been vandalized repeatedly are semi-protected, meaning that editing by new or unregistered users is prohibited through technical measures. If you have an account that is four days old and has made at least 10 edits, then you can bypass semi-protection and edit any semi-protected page. Some pages, such as highly visible templates, are fully-protected, meaning that only administrators can edit them. If this is not the case, you may have been blocked or your IP address caught up in a range block.
Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like <ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing).
In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:
==References==
{{Reflist}}
What is a WikiProject, and how do I join one?
A WikiProject is a group of editors that are interested in improving the coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia. (See this page for a complete list of WikiProjects.) If you would like to help, add your username to the list that is on the bottom of the WikiProject page.
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.
Hi NGC 628! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Islam several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.
Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button.
Some of your recent contributions to Quran have been undone because context is already inQuran#The_BibleZsohl(Talk)09:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Enjoining good and forbidding wrong, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maruf.
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Klbrain (talk) 10:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sharia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Burton and Daniel Brown.
Hello, I'm R Prazeres. I noticed that you recently removed content from History of the Quran without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. R Prazeres (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed this sentence, which reflects the Yemeni government's attitude towards a scientist, because I thought it was not very relevant to the history of the Quran. There is nothing that requires it to be included, at least in the introduction.NGC 628 (talk) 06:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Prazeres, first of all, I would like to say the following about your tendentious editing definition;
1-No one can be absolutely neutral, but a neutrality that the average can accept is sufficient.
2-Yes, it is true that I added the views of the Revisionist school. But this does not indicate that I am inclined to organize the entire article according to the revisionist school, and I am not making such an effort.
3-Like many others, I do not consider the views of this school to be fringe.
4-I am in favor of that school and other views being included in the articles together and within their own encyclopedic value scales.
5-Finally, I made such additions to some articles where alternative views were not included and they were given in a devalued manner (this points to the dominance of an invisible group). If this situation hadn't happened, I wouldn't have needed to make such an effort.
My contributions will never disrupt the general balance, and as I said on the discussion pages, I respect wikipedia policies and have full faith in their requirements. Thank you for your understanding and attention.NGC 628 (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to get the point. But the short answer is: don't re-attempt things that consensus has already rejected, unless you've obtained a new consensus to do so. R Prazeres (talk) 09:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not very interested in politics pages. I'm sorry for that. I have to read some pages because someone brought them up.
However, I understand that the pages are not set as definitive rules, except in these very limited cases, and are only guidelines. Consensus is one of them. As a flexible concept used to express "common sense", not unity of opinion. What I understand is a rule that will prevent the others from becoming invisible by inflating one of the subheadings in an article that may consist of many subheadings.
Depending on the breadth of the subject, there is no harm in covering different information on other pages in another article with small links, sentences or a few paragraphs, and the amount of this is left entirely to the responsibility of the contributors.
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Quran did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.
Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button.
Especially in contentious articles, it is disruptive not to explain why you are making the various changes. Edit summaries are expected.Stefen Towers among the rest!Gab • Gruntwerk18:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Islamic eschatology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Cook.
Hello Stefen. I will try to be more careful in my contributions. By the way, taking back some of my contributions does not seem like a very healthy and positive evaluation to me. It would also make me happy to see that someone is interested in reverts, and I think it would contribute more to progress. Thanks for your interest.NGC 628 (talk) 10:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When what you added is unencyclopedic, as putting a question in the text is, it needs to be reverted, and doing that is constructive for the encyclopedia. If you have a question about the content, it is best to ask on the article's talk page. Also, please begin using edit summaries to explain your work. I see a lot of recent edits to Quran, including the removal of a reference, that have no explanation attached. Explaining your work is expected by other editors in trying to understand the changes and reduces the chances that your edits are reverted. Stefen 𝕋owers among the rest!Gab • Gruntwerk18:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NGC 628, The phrase "and gained tutelage over people and the administration" already conveys the main point. And the "Ismah" concept, according to general consensus refers to their prophets, angels, and their The Fourteen Infallibles. In limited cases, it could refer to a human theoretically of "perfect faith"; however, it does not state that their decisions are beyond question. StarkReport (talk) 07:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretically, in practice, the decision of the religious leader is above all others, including the parliament, the president and the judiciary, and cannot be reversed unless he wishes. We also need to look at the election style of the so-called "elected". In fact, no person who cannot obtain prior permission from the religious leadership can participate in the elections of these institutions. NGC 628 (talk) 08:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"the decision of the religious leader is above all others, including the parliament, the president and the judiciary, and cannot be reversed unless he wishes"
From my understanding, that's just one guy: Ali Khamenei.
While Ayatollahs and Maraji are highly respected religious scholars, they do not hold the same political power as the Supreme Leader(Khamenei). They influence religious thought and jurisprudence but do not have the same governing authority. Their role is more advisory and spiritual. StarkReport (talk) 09:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"We also need to look at the election style of the so-called "elected"."
I do not insist that the expression remain the same. Also, a simple expression is better for me. Thank you for your contribution and interest. NGC 628 (talk) 10:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.
Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button.
Thanks! Materialscientist (talk) 08:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi NGC 628! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Islam several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
