This is the current revision of this page, as edited by C.Fred (talk | contribs) at 04:33, 15 January 2025 (Undid revision 1269532152 by CollectiveWest (talk) - redundant). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 04:33, 15 January 2025 by C.Fred (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 1269532152 by CollectiveWest (talk) - redundant)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Welcome to my talk page.
|
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Regarding Al-Bukhari.
Hello threre, regarding my edits on Al-Bukhari article, first of all i am not the one who started this editing war. hence i am not sure why you're reverting my changes. the matter of the fact is that the ancestry of al-bukhari is not agreed upon by Muslim scholars, neither early ones nor contemporary. and there are three opinions on the matter and historians have differed widely on the subject. I have re-written the article to reflect all points of view objectively and without bias. so what's the problem here? Bakkouz (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Bakkouz You are the one who is at (or has actually crossed) the 3RR brightline. —C.Fred (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- What about the article itself. you did not address this issue. Let me say it again: the ancestry of al-bukhari is not agreed upon by Muslim scholars, neither early ones nor contemporary. and there are three opinions on the matter and historians have differed widely on the subject. I have re-written the article to reflect all points of view objectively and without bias. and then User:شاه عباس comes and reverts my chances as if he is the authority on the subject. I am not stating my own opinions, i'm stating the opinions of scholars in my edits. and he keeps reverting them like someone with an agenda. Bakkouz (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Bakkouz I am not convinced that any editor is acting in bad faith. To the extent that I am taking administrative action related to the article, I am not wading into the content discussions related to the article. Again, I reverted your edits to bring you out of violation of 3RR; I figured that was a better solution than blocking your account. Do you think I erred in that decision? —C.Fred (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- What about the article itself. you did not address this issue. Let me say it again: the ancestry of al-bukhari is not agreed upon by Muslim scholars, neither early ones nor contemporary. and there are three opinions on the matter and historians have differed widely on the subject. I have re-written the article to reflect all points of view objectively and without bias. and then User:شاه عباس comes and reverts my chances as if he is the authority on the subject. I am not stating my own opinions, i'm stating the opinions of scholars in my edits. and he keeps reverting them like someone with an agenda. Bakkouz (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello
I am reverting the deleted articles because the guy who nominated them (who is the same person) has demonstrated a clesr bias against survivor pages and a lack of regard for winners and that their pages are meant to stay Wwew345t (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Wwew345t The community feels otherwise, based on the respective discussions. See your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- "The community" you cant call a barley attened afd started by a guy with a bias against them doesnt coint as comminity Wwew345t (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Could you help me set some deletion reviews up? I have no idea how too Wwew345t (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Wwew345t What part of the WP:Deletion review instructions is unclear? —C.Fred (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Could you help me set some deletion reviews up? I have no idea how too Wwew345t (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- "The community" you cant call a barley attened afd started by a guy with a bias against them doesnt coint as comminity Wwew345t (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – January 2025
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversight changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RFC, Misplaced Pages:Notability (species) was adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
- A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
Technical news
- The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.
Arbitration
- Following the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: CaptainEek, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Liz, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, Theleekycauldron, Worm That Turned.
Miscellaneous
- A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Lemons drop
This is an English sweet so why do you feel American English should apply Sharnadd (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Sharnadd Because the article is written in American English. —C.Fred (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
modification cancelled
Hi, can I ask you why my change was cancelled by you? Slancio2 (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Slancio2 For obviously going against consensus and concealing relevant information from the article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I understand your point, however, I believe the information I previously removed, and which was later reinserted by you, is quite irrelevant. There does not appear to be any connection between the police officer's skin colour and the homicide committed by him. Slancio2 (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Slancio2 This has been discussed before, and consensus is that it is rather relevant. —C.Fred (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I understand your point, however, I believe the information I previously removed, and which was later reinserted by you, is quite irrelevant. There does not appear to be any connection between the police officer's skin colour and the homicide committed by him. Slancio2 (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/104.173.25.23
I recalled that you previously blocked this ip for edit warring and has resumed edit Warring using an different ip see Special:Contributions/74.87.19.246 Untamed1910 (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)