User talk:Albertatiran: Difference between revisions

Hi Albertatiran! 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

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! -- Toddy1 (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Albertatiran! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like GreenMeansGo (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Why did you remove my edit? The statement was false and the early sources are weak on that issue Islamdefence (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It might be better if you could cite your claims and add your argument to the talk page or, better yet, to the wiki page. Removing the other side's view would not help us create an unbiased article. Thank you. I'll copy this on Hasan's talk page as well.

Hello, just wanna to give info for ur good faith revertion, that Ibn Sa'd were not a primary source, as he's only quoted from older chroniclers such as Waqidi or Al-Maqrizi, while also actively giving commentary about their major works. meanwhile, also per WP:PRIMARYCARE ruling if even it is using a primary source, its still fair use as it only for straight information about sons of Ali. regards from me Ahendra (talk) 12:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahendra: See MOS:ISLAM. Primary sources are to be used when secondary sources don't exist. The article already has over a dozen secondary RS. In the future, I suggest using Ali's talk page for transparency. Albertatiran (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Nahrawan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iraqi. 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1053844804

Why you delete mother's Day? M.Nadian (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Nadian: But it's there! :) It's mentioned in the section In the modern culture. I think I just removed the conversion table and one sentence that wasn't reliably sourced. Please edit or let me know here if you think the table is necessary. Albertatiran (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm sorry, I didn't see carefully. M.Nadian (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are leaving useful edit summaries. I suggest that you also use the talk pages of the articles concerned to explain your objections to the edits that you consider problematic.^[1][2][3]-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Toddy1 From the looks of it, I was quick to judge the recent unexplained edits as vandalism, whereas they seem to had been fixes to the infobox. Albertatiran (talk) 08:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello In this article and some another if you see Persian Translation is useful. (in Persian this is good article and ref was checked.) Google Translation is good between fa and en, if in some sentences translated wrong I can fix. M.Nadian (talk) 13:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M.Nadian Ok, thanks. I'll check out the Persian article about the Battle of the Camel. Albertatiran (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I always use 'Who wrote that' to recognize who has written a specific portion of a page. You may find it useful. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in this edit you introduced a reference to "Rogerson 2006". No such work is defined, so the article appears in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors and nobody can look up the reference. Do you still have access to the work to fix it? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DuncanHill Will do. Thanks for pointing that out. Albertatiran (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what is going on here:

1. 04:43, 2 January 2022 Ab.Saleem added Umar ibn Ali
2. 09:54, 2 January 2022 PZMir added Abu Bakr ibn Ali and Umar ibn Ali
3. 11:40, 2 January 2022 IAmAtHome added Abu Bakr ibn Ali and Umar ibn Ali

You need to keep a close eye on how many reverts you do on the page on Ali ibn Abi Talib over the next few days.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly advise creating a section on the article talk page to discuss whether Abu Bakr ibn Ali and Umar ibn Ali should be on the list of children in the infobox.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Albertatiran. Do you have time to take a look at the problems mentioned here and help me rewriting the article? Ghazaalch (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ghazaalch! I'm away until March 22nd but will follow up with you as soon as I'm "back" :) 37.237.140.10 (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghazaalch, just FYI, I've started reading the article draft here and will get back to you soon. Albertatiran (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. BTW I am going to change the title of the article and add more information to it. Would you be able to do your work after the changes are implemented. Ghazaalch (talk) 08:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ghazaalch, no worries. I can definitely wait for a revised draft. Albertatiran (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Albertatiran. The article is ready now, but should be rewritten in an encyclopedic manner; And it need to be summarized especially the section dedicated to United States hypocrisy.Ghazaalch (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I'll probably also add comments for you to consider as I edit the text. Albertatiran (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Albertatiran. I appreciate your help. Ghazaalch (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Albertarian; Thank you for helping me improving "Political Hypocrisy". It was a lot of work and you did well. I would like working with you on Shia Imams articles too, and we could nominate them together when they are good enough. As for Hasan ibn Ali, we could withdraw it from the nomination page, if you need time to improve it. And you can start working on it from now. Ghazaalch (talk) 06:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ghazaalch! Sorry for the slow reply. Please don't consider this discussion to be in any way a criticism of your valuable contributions to Wikipedia and, in particular, Shia articles. The following gives a couple of examples to support my earlier comment. An earlier version of the Hasan article included the passage: "According to Madelung, Hasan criticized his father, Ali, for not doing enough to defend Uthman. Jafarian, however, writes that such reports about Hasan's alleged Uthmanid stance are not consistent with his widely reported involvement in Ali's military campaigns and the fierce opposition of the Banu Umayyad to the burial of Hasan next to Muhammad." The criticism of Ali by Hasan is derived from Sunni sources and, sadly, there is no western academic source that includes the Shia counter-argument, hence the use of Jafarian's Hayat-e fikri wa siyasi-e imaman-e Shia. However, this counter-argument was removed later in the process of preparing the article for GA. As another example, the current article includes the sentence "Hasan was present at the Battle of Siffin against the army of Mu'awiya I, though the former reportedly took no active part in the battle." Again, there is no Shia counter-argument and it's also not possible to remove the sentence from the article, considering that it comes from a reliable source, which was nevertheless heavily influenced by early Sunni historians. I guess my point is that 1) the GA process invites considerable attention and interest from (hopefully well-meaning) Sunni editors who rewrite the article from their own point of view without including the Shia views, and 2) this process is often irreversible. To summarize, if one's goal is to offer an unbiased view of key Shia figures, then a GA article seems to fail to achieve that goal since the end product is more or less the usual Sunni propaganda. In any case, these are my personal views, nothing more. Thanks again for your contributions to Shia articles. Albertatiran (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Albertatiran. I've left se messages on the articles talk page. You added a lot of {{sfn}}s to this article, put you've not added the full cites they need to link to. Also they lack page numbers, without full details these references are not complete. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ActivelyDisinterested! Thanks for pointing that out. I'll fix the broken ones. If a page number is missing from a SFN, then it's given in "Sources", e.g., an encyclopedia article. It's unlikely that any of the page numbers are missing but I'll check anyway. Albertatiran (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You right encyclopedic entries don't generally need page numbers. Sorry about that, I'm just checking errors and didn't see that detail. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]