Content deleted Content added
TrangaBellam (talk | contribs) →Habs-I-dam: Reply Tag: Reply |
27.123.253.165 (talk) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
::::oops! I thought I am talking with [[User:Walrus Ji]]. Filmycompanion is the junk garbage which you had requested to whitelist few days before [[Special:Diff/1076953633|here on this talk page]]. I meant to say it is better than that filmy garbage, as it is listed in data bases and it is needed here to add info. [[Special:Contributions/27.123.253.165|27.123.253.165]] ([[User talk:27.123.253.165|talk]]) 17:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC) |
::::oops! I thought I am talking with [[User:Walrus Ji]]. Filmycompanion is the junk garbage which you had requested to whitelist few days before [[Special:Diff/1076953633|here on this talk page]]. I meant to say it is better than that filmy garbage, as it is listed in data bases and it is needed here to add info. [[Special:Contributions/27.123.253.165|27.123.253.165]] ([[User talk:27.123.253.165|talk]]) 17:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::::I came here from your post at RSN and have never edited this page or any other relevant topic; so, I have no clue about the reason behind your hostility, which was also directed at Apaugasma. Nonetheless, it is evident that you are a returning sock and NOTHERE. Requesting attention at [[WP:AN]]. [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 17:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC) |
:::::I came here from your post at RSN and have never edited this page or any other relevant topic; so, I have no clue about the reason behind your hostility, which was also directed at Apaugasma. Nonetheless, it is evident that you are a returning sock and NOTHERE. Requesting attention at [[WP:AN]]. [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 17:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC) |
||
::::::{{u|TrangaBellam|Walrus Ji}}: Usually the sock puppets like you on Wikipedia consider other as sock puppets. If you think am a sock puppet then you should open an SPI instead of speaking bullshit. [[Special:Contributions/27.123.253.165|27.123.253.165]] ([[User talk:27.123.253.165|talk]]) 17:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:20, 18 January 2023
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Paid link spam
I see someone spamming paid link from Brill online, can you please stop it? 37.111.219.223 (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- Since most of the content is based on Brill online, I am restoring it to last stable revision. 37.111.219.223 (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- Apaugasma, I am ready to discuss the changes on the talk page, May I know, Why you think using only Brill there is compulsory? 37.111.216.141 (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for commenting here. I don't think using sources published by Brill like the Encyclopaedia of Islam (EI) is compulsory, though I do of course think it is a good practice: the EI is the standard reference in the field, and Brill is among the most reliable publishing houses in the field.
- In these edits, you removed a lot of information sourced to the EI, for no apparent reason. You have done the same thing in the past, and two other editors have reverted you in these instances, which means that your edits are against consensus. If you want to remove this info because you believe Brill is unreliable, you can ask about the reliability of Brill on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. In the mean time, you should not reinstate the edits for which there is no consensus here. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Using Brill there which is a paid source, and only available to it's subscribers or paid users, citing Brill/ any other paid sources makes it difficult to verify the content of cited sources to the users who do not have access to those sources, which can be extra trouble to other editors who do not have those access, so being compassionate to fellow editor it is good practice to cite easily accessible sources. Also since as you said you have no compulsion to use Brill, I see there is no need to reinsert again, as I can see article is fine without Brill too and does not need it, and if you want expansion of article, please ping me so that I can expand it with your kind cooperation, based on the available sources in the article along with other good sources which is easily accessible. Hope you Understand. Thank you. 37.111.216.141 (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Please see WP:RSC. As long a source can be verified in a reasonable amount of time then they are fine to use and often these sources can be verified by editors through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. Difficulty to verify sources is not a good enough reason to remove the content. Suonii180 (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately there is no reasonable access. 37.111.216.141 (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi again 37.111.216.141! I concur with Suonii180. See WP:SOURCEACCESS, a part of our verifiability policy:
Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange).
- I will grant you that I am not a fan of Brill's closed access policy either (nor of their enormous prices!), but accessibility is just not a factor in determining which source to use on Wikipedia. We use the WP:BESTSOURCES, and Brill is very much part of that. It's also not only the sourcing: the article was much improved by the editor who used the Brill source, and it is not acceptable to undo this improvement without a good basis either in policy or in other sources. If you want to gain access to a Brill source, please ask on the WikiProject Resource Exchange.
- I see that you've gone ahead and changed the article to your preferred version again, twice. This is called edit warring, which is not allowed. Please self-revert, and get consensus at the talk page. This is your last warning. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi again 37.111.216.141! I concur with Suonii180. See WP:SOURCEACCESS, a part of our verifiability policy:
- Unfortunately there is no reasonable access. 37.111.216.141 (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Please see WP:RSC. As long a source can be verified in a reasonable amount of time then they are fine to use and often these sources can be verified by editors through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. Difficulty to verify sources is not a good enough reason to remove the content. Suonii180 (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Using Brill there which is a paid source, and only available to it's subscribers or paid users, citing Brill/ any other paid sources makes it difficult to verify the content of cited sources to the users who do not have access to those sources, which can be extra trouble to other editors who do not have those access, so being compassionate to fellow editor it is good practice to cite easily accessible sources. Also since as you said you have no compulsion to use Brill, I see there is no need to reinsert again, as I can see article is fine without Brill too and does not need it, and if you want expansion of article, please ping me so that I can expand it with your kind cooperation, based on the available sources in the article along with other good sources which is easily accessible. Hope you Understand. Thank you. 37.111.216.141 (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Apaugasma, I am ready to discuss the changes on the talk page, May I know, Why you think using only Brill there is compulsory? 37.111.216.141 (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Habs-I-dam
Want to add the concept of Habs I dam by citing this peer reviewed journal article. Are there any objections? 27.123.253.176 (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, please post the exact text that you would like added to the article here on this page, including a proper citation (see here on how to do that) with page number included, and use the {{Edit semi-protected}} template (click on it for guidance). Someone will then answer your request and add the text to the article if it is properly sourced. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Apaugasma: Why are you in so hurry to add the content, let the community decide whether the provided source is reliable or not? Anyways, point is not to edit the semi protected page but about reliability. Also you seem to controlling this article for so long, let other decide it. I assume this article is not your personal property. 27.123.253.176 (talk) 08:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- I literally advised you to let someone else decide: when you use {{Edit semi-protected}} someone else will come and answer your request. They will only be able to do so though if you provide the text that you would like added to the article, including a full bibliographical reference. As an unregistered editor you cannot edit the article, so others will need to copy the text you provide here into the article. However, they will only copy the proposed text into the article if it is in line with core content policies.
- The journal looks acceptable at first glance [1] [2] (unfortunately the doi won't resolve at this time and the website currently seems to be down, but googling the journal name yields no red flags), and though I can't speak for the reliability of the author it generally looks okay to me at this time. It will depend on the actual content and if it duly fits into the article.
- Please try to assume good faith (a fundamental principle on Wikipedia). I'm not watching this article anymore, but if you treat the next editor like me I can guarantee that things won't work out the way you would like them to. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Apaugasma: What do you mean by this, I can guarantee that things won't work out the way you would like them, You are assuming that I have Coi, mind it, I don't care if things won't work in ways what you are assuming. I am just here to improve the article, not like you to control this article. I am here because I was guided by an admin to put this on talk, otherwise I would never had interacted with you. 27.123.253.176 (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- I mean your baseless assumption that I am here to 'control the article' and your general hostility, which is entirely uncalled for. Please assume good faith. I didn't even think about a COI, but if you should have one, that's entirely okay, just declare it by putting {{connected contributor}} on the top of this talk page. It's all good, just post the text you would like to add to the article and someone will evaluate it. If you believe the admin who guided you would help you better, why don't you ping them instead of me? Or you know, just use the {{Edit semi-protected}} template which will summon an uninvolved editor? Someone will help you along to improve the article if you just follow the guidance. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- Pretty silly, Apaugasma. I will need to ping you because I am talking with you. I will ping DragonflySixtyseven later, once the discussing get closed. You are the only participant here, let others decide it. We need consensus here. 27.123.253.176 (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- I told you: post your suggestion on the talk page. Wait a week to see if anyone objects. If no one does, go ahead and implement it, but if there is an objection, then negotiate with that person.
- It would help if you are more specific about what your suggestion is. DS (talk) 04:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- Pretty silly, Apaugasma. I will need to ping you because I am talking with you. I will ping DragonflySixtyseven later, once the discussing get closed. You are the only participant here, let others decide it. We need consensus here. 27.123.253.176 (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- I mean your baseless assumption that I am here to 'control the article' and your general hostility, which is entirely uncalled for. Please assume good faith. I didn't even think about a COI, but if you should have one, that's entirely okay, just declare it by putting {{connected contributor}} on the top of this talk page. It's all good, just post the text you would like to add to the article and someone will evaluate it. If you believe the admin who guided you would help you better, why don't you ping them instead of me? Or you know, just use the {{Edit semi-protected}} template which will summon an uninvolved editor? Someone will help you along to improve the article if you just follow the guidance. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Apaugasma: Why are you in so hurry to add the content, let the community decide whether the provided source is reliable or not? Anyways, point is not to edit the semi protected page but about reliability. Also you seem to controlling this article for so long, let other decide it. I assume this article is not your personal property. 27.123.253.176 (talk) 08:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- The journal is not reliable. Not indexed in any reputed database. Runs out of Meerut, hmm. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- WalrusJi: Thanks for your response, atleast this journal appear more reliable than our blacklisted filmcompanion.in. lol, as it is there in data bases such as [3] and [4]. 27.123.253.165 (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Who is "Walrusji", and what is the relevance of "filmcompanion.in"? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- oops! I thought I am talking with User:Walrus Ji. Filmycompanion is the junk garbage which you had requested to whitelist few days before here on this talk page. I meant to say it is better than that filmy garbage, as it is listed in data bases and it is needed here to add info. 27.123.253.165 (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- I came here from your post at RSN and have never edited this page or any other relevant topic; so, I have no clue about the reason behind your hostility, which was also directed at Apaugasma. Nonetheless, it is evident that you are a returning sock and NOTHERE. Requesting attention at WP:AN. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- oops! I thought I am talking with User:Walrus Ji. Filmycompanion is the junk garbage which you had requested to whitelist few days before here on this talk page. I meant to say it is better than that filmy garbage, as it is listed in data bases and it is needed here to add info. 27.123.253.165 (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Who is "Walrusji", and what is the relevance of "filmcompanion.in"? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- WalrusJi: Thanks for your response, atleast this journal appear more reliable than our blacklisted filmcompanion.in. lol, as it is there in data bases such as [3] and [4]. 27.123.253.165 (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)