Lebanon Stub‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Islam Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Baboon43, Please, quit cherry-picking the sources, bullying and throwing around the accusations.
With reference to
"According to Thomas Pierret, Ahbash's ideology "can be termed "neo-tradionalist", in that it aims to preserve the Islamic heritage of the Ottoman era[8] - which they consider themselves to be the inheritors."[11]
, I cannot make it more clearer than this. For further breakdown, please, see the following:
- "can be termed "neo-tradionalist", in that it aims to preserve the Islamic heritage of the Ottoman era[8] Source/Reference: Pierret, Thomas (2010). "Al-Ahbash". Basic Reference (Scotland, UK: Edinburgh Academics) 28: 217–229. doi:10.1017%2FS0020743800063145. Retrieved 2012-04-27.
- which they consider themselves to be the inheritors."''[11] Source/Reference: Pierret, Thomas (2005). "Internet in a Sectarian Islamic Context". ISIM Review (The Netherlands: International Institute for the Study of Islam in the Modern World) (Spring 2005): 15. Retrieved 2009-04-10
I would like to reiterate my request highlighted in the above RfC: "Given that the subject of Al-Ahbash is extremely controversial and given that the proponents of Al-Ahbash constantly insert their POVs to all the Wikipedia pages, it is extremely important that this article (even after merger) MUST continue to present the information written by the Al-Ahbash as well as its opponents (including "Wahabis", "Salafis", "Infidels" or "Kaafir" .etc) objectively under the light of pertinent sources and Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines." Should you like then you are more then welcome to help. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
mckhan continues to tamper with my edits
kindly revert back my edits. what do you mean "according to" stop trying to devalue RS material..i know you hate the mainstream media because its my way or the highway with you. Baboon43 (talk) 08:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
seeing mckhan refuses to discuss his POV changes and just reverts its time for a block. Baboon43 (talk)
- Baboon43 (talk · contribs), "Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly."
- I have already discussed with you (here and then on RFC here) enough. Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Al-Ahbash, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. McKhan (talk)
- McKhan, you have been here long enough to read the page you just referred to. If a content dispute between yourself and Baboon43 is editing disruptively, then you would also be blocked for disruptive editing and edit warring. Discuss the content, don't just copy-paste templates that belong on user talk pages as if that's some sort of discussions.
- Baboon43, it is most certainly not "my way or the highway"; that kind of comment isn't going to make someone want to discuss anything with you, especially when you say that "its time for a block"; that kind of comment would belong here or here, but it doesn't do anything on this talk page but cause problems, and make McKhan less likely to want to discuss the content with you. - SudoGhost 19:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sudo, I have already discussed with him (here and then on RFC here) enough. He doesn't want me to post any sort of warnings on his Talk Page. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- That doesn't mean post them on an article's talk page, which is inappropriate. "I have discussed with him enough" is a quick way to get blocked again; if you're not going to discuss it, don't revert it, especially not repeatedly and with erroneous edit summaries claiming that the edit you're reverting is disruptive and with an edit summary of "per talk page" when there's nothing here but inaccurate and inappropriate user warnings that have no place or purpose on an article's talk page. - SudoGhost 19:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sudo, Please, feel welcome to read the previous discussions which I have had with him - about this edit - here and here. He inserted his POV / personal analysis first time here. It is a fact that I have already discussed with him in detail. I also warned him that he is being disruptive by keep on reverting to his personal analysis / POV which can be found here and then see what I was told in return. I hope that clarifies further the reasons behind my edit summaries and users warning being posted here. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- That doesn't mean post them on an article's talk page, which is inappropriate. "I have discussed with him enough" is a quick way to get blocked again; if you're not going to discuss it, don't revert it, especially not repeatedly and with erroneous edit summaries claiming that the edit you're reverting is disruptive and with an edit summary of "per talk page" when there's nothing here but inaccurate and inappropriate user warnings that have no place or purpose on an article's talk page. - SudoGhost 19:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sudo, I have already discussed with him (here and then on RFC here) enough. He doesn't want me to post any sort of warnings on his Talk Page. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)