User talk:Uness232/Archives/2024/March

Sexuality in Islam

Haha interesting. What do you have to say about

• Sexuality in Islam ?

דולב חולב (talk) 01:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Criticisms of the Quran

i initially was on this page bc i adored the depiction of the unity of God, over christianity. i’ve been reading the quran, and actively considering it. but i had issues with what felt like this expectation to “blindly” trust its divine origin, while simultaneously refusing to have its validity transparent.

i’ve been in a deep rabbit hole about everything regarding Islam. i question the doctrine not because i want to prove it wrong, but because there were specific scriptures that called to me, and i am plainly perplexed.

i criticize the bible, but i also can’t say i reject it either. i promise you i want only extremely objective info, and it made me really frustrated to read on that page clear rhetoric that these skepticism are not welcomed.

faith is believing despite the anecdotal evidence, without the proof. that is edit is rejecting the legitimacy of the pure existence of questioning. now i just feel even more skeptic.

yes this is clearly personal, but i am gathering a strong indication this is something that matters to you, and i just want you to understand Primadonnatella (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Primadonnatella I understand your concerns, and I don't necessarily disagree with you on a personal level either. My problems are with the neutral tone required by an encyclopedia. We should talk about this on the article talk page, but per WP:QUO, I ask that you revert your edits on the page for now so that we can talk about your changes on the talk. Uness232 (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Wearing my admin hat, I undid Primadonnatella re-instatement of her edit, being a disputed/challenged substantive change. I appreciate your (Uness232) willingness to listen and discuss it and that both of your are remaining civil in a topic-area that is prone to...not-that-sort-of-good-behavior. DMacks (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

And I, also with my admin hat, have justed warned Primadonnatella against edit warring at the article, and told them that there are grammatical problems with their changes. Bishonen | tålk 21:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC).

Turkey

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Turkey, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Again, you are continuing with full reverts. You also deleted notes with reliably sourced content Bogazicili (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Including both definitions in the infobox would also be more appropriate per WP:NPOV. Are you going through my edits due to the exchange in Talk:Istanbul? Bogazicili (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bogazicili I'll reply on Talk:Turkey. And no; this is already what I edit, see my edit history. Uness232 (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

This is also a user conduct issue. Why did you delete reliably sourced content such as the footnotes? I am trying to improve the article to GA and FA, you are making that more difficult. Bogazicili (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

What? The footnotes would only make sense with your version of the article. I do concede that by the process of reverting your infobox edits, I did end up reverting one change that should have stayed (the unlink of presidential), but all of your infobox edits were interrelated. Uness232 (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

There was information about people having multiple ethnic identities, and that Syrians under temporary protection are excluded from overall population numbers in the infobox etc. Bogazicili (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, those edits were nested under your setup of the infobox, and my expectation was that there would be a discussion after my revert. Anyway; I'll still be responding over at Talk:Turkey. Uness232 (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

You could have removed parts you objected to while keeping the footnotes. The entire revert is a user conduct issue. Bogazicili (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I did not see how I could have done that in that context, but perhaps that was me being hasty. I am sorry if that was the case. I hope we can move on to the actual content dispute now. Uness232 (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Are you being hasty towards my edits because of the exchange in Talk:Istanbul? As I mentioned, I intend to improve the article to GA and then to FA. Should I expect hasty reverts in the future? Bogazicili (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course not, but please, WP:STICK. Uness232 (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Bogazicili (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

This is just a standard information note by the way, nothing serious or alarming, or anything that requires any action. Bogazicili (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Bogazicili (talk) 10:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

About article Harbin

Hi! If you translate this website with Google Translation, You will find a sentence that says: "Harbin" comes from the Jurchen language "Harwen", which means "swan". This is different from the "Place of Drying Fishing Nets" statement introduced by English Wikipedia. I wonder if I can add it to the article?-- 邻家的王子 (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@邻家的王子 That would be allowed per WP:NONENG; however, if you can find an English-language source, that would be preferred. Make sure to not replace the original statement if the original statement was sourced as well. Uness232 (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)