User talk:Xtremedood

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Amir Khusrow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hasht-Bihisht. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The New Edit

The new edit is a misrepresentation, There is a big different between than to Christianity and from Christianity', the source is very clear, it dosen't claims that 12.5 million christian converted to Islam. The source cited that between 1990-2000, there been more people who converted to Islam (12.5 millions from different religious background) comprare to people who convert to Christianiy (the number could be 11 million or 1 million the souce don't give infromtion except it's was less in absolute terms than the muslim convert), If you back to source you will see that the paragraph was disccused the religions that recieve more converts between 1990-2000, so the claiming that the number of Christians who converted to Islam is 12.5 million between 1990-2000 is misrepresentation and it's from you not from the source. The 12.5 million is the numbers of the converts to Islam between 1990-2000 from different religious background, not the numbers of Christians only who convert to Islam. Aslo read Wikipedia:Copyright violationsS you can't copy paste the soucre, So please next time try not to misrepresentated scources.--Jobas (talk) 10:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no copyright violation. You seem to not have access to the source. I have posted the wording in the edit summary. Also, the wording is not a misrepresentation, rather it is straight to the point. No where does WP forbid in its policies that comparisons can be drawn between the total number of converts to each religion. Xtremedood (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure there been misrepresentation, you claims in the article List of converts to Islam from Christianity that 12.5 million Christian converts to Islam, which wrong since the souce do not cited that or make such a cliams as that. The source very clear (it was comparisons). Any way your new edit place is the article List of converts to Islam.--Jobas (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the wording. It does not say that. Xtremedood (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rumi

Hi. I reverted your edit per WP:WEIGHT. Read the section Rumi#Life and cited sources for more info:

Rumi's father was Bahā ud-Dīn Walad, a theologian, jurist and a mystic from Balkh, who was also known by the followers of Rumi as Sultan al-Ulama or "Sultan of the Scholars". The popular hagiographer assertions that have claimed the family's descent from the Caliph Abu Bakr does not hold on closer examination and is rejected by modern scholars.[38][39][40] The claim of maternal descent from the Khwarazmshah for Rumi or his father is also seen as a non-historical hagiographical tradition designed to connect the family with royalty, but this claim is rejected for chronological and historical reasons.[38][39][40] The most complete genealogy offered for the family stretches back to six or seven generations to famous Hanafi Jurists.[38][39][40] --Wario-Man (talk) 04:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are right

I just checked the sources in Ibn Ishaq by the Guillaume and the Muhammad in Medina, yet you should expect Iryna and Hebel will not abide and stand down. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, things might have worked well, your presence in the talk page has restored order, good job Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Eid!

A very happy eid to you and your family from bottom of my heart.

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still concerned about your deletion of sources

Although you have the right to remove whatever you want from your talk page, my concerns still remain. You removed a source from Brill Publishers claiming it wasn't reliable, and you seem to have deleted the second source in question without actually reading it. I do think that a thorough review of both WP:IRS and, in light of the second issue, WP:V would help. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is this POV?

Xtremedood, how is this edit you reverted POV or misrepresentation of the source at all? The author actually says that the masses of Indian Muslims were more Hindu than Muslim in practice due to the bridge provided by Sufism. That isn't POV on my part nor is it some sort of a criticism on the author's part. Did you actually read the source? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you don't enjoy dealing with me on this point, then I have no opposition to Wikipedia:Third opinion. If you decide to take the initiative and go that route, you have my full consent. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source is outdated from 1930, which goes against WP:RS [1] and it is a misrepresentation of the source as well, since he is not talking about Sufism. Xtremedood (talk) 03:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect on both accounts. Regarding what he says, then the [591%20-Clean%20-D_djvu.txt full text] reveals that he is referring to Indian Islam in the context of Sufism (you'd need to check the page numbers I mentioned in my edit).

Regarding the source being from 1930, then it's not only in compliance with what you just cited, but it's actually an advantage. From the section that you just cited:

"With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing. However, newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts, applying modern knowledge to correctly explain things that older sources could not have, or remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt."

Nowhere is there evidence that a source from 1930 can't be used, and in fact, it can actually be a good thing based on the text above. The specific areas mentioned in the cited section where older sources might be a problem are four: science, academia, politics and fashion. The history of Sufism in India is none of those things, and Titus' book is a respected and reliable source.

With these points in mind - that the source is reliable in this context and was accurately represented by my text - then I can't comprehend its removal, especially since you reverted my new edits (which were different from the old ones) within only two minutes. Two minutes isn't enough time for you to actually read through the pages I cited. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source is indeed outdated and contradicts modern data. Modern academics, such as William Chittick (Sufism: A Beginners Guide page 2), Titus Burckhardt (Introduction to Sufi Doctrine page 4), etc. criticize many of the methods used by figures during this period. Modern scholar, Carl Ernst, also criticizes methods during this period, on page 2 [2] of “Between Orientalism and Fundamentalism: Problematizing the Teaching of Sufism”. Better sources are indeed required. However, I am willing to make an offer of compromise on this matter. Would you agree to revert the History of Sufism page prior to our edits in the last few days, to the version last edited by user:Magioladitis on November 9, 2016? As this may expedite a lengthy process of verification and discussion. Xtremedood (talk) 07:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I absolutely like your proposal, and you have my respect for being the first one to offer a compromise here. In the future, if you want to synthesize the Chittick/Burckhardt/Ernst sources into related articles, then you'd have my tentative support as well. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. David A (talk) 05:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Xtremedood. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

You are topic banned with immediate effect from the following areas:

Religion, broadly construed;
India and Pakistan, broadly construed.

This is an indefinite topic ban, and you may appeal after not less than six months. The record of the discussion is here: [3]. Guy (Help!) 09:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have misunderstood a few things.

First, this is not an arbitration enforcement action. It has nothing to do with the Arbitration Committee or the discretionary sanctions autorised for specific topic areas under specific arbitration cases. It is a community-enacted topic ban. The correct venue for appeal is WP:ANI and the correct venue for asking for a review by other admins is WP:AN. An appeal prior to 6 months is unlikely to be heard, a request for review by other admins can be filed any time but mus include details of any procedural irregularities: not liking the sanction is not likely to be seen as valid grounds for review. When you do appeal, be sure to say what you will do differently. Read WP:NOTTHEM.

Second, you have asserted that there is no valid basis for this sanction and that your edits are fine because you are convinced you are right. This is one of those recursive situations where your response demonstrates the very problem complained of, which is your apparent inability to accept the possibility that you might be wrong. Your editing is factional and combative and is considered disruptive by uninvolved editors and admins, your unwillingness to accept that judgment is a large part of the problem. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case request declined

Hi Xtremedood. The Arbitration Committee has voted to decline the Clarification needed as to why I have been indefinitely topic banned from religion and Pakistan-India topics arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. It may be advisable to review WP:DR for next steps. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Xtremedood. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Battle of Sangamner for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Battle of Sangamner is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Sangamner until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Sudsahab (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]