User talk:StarkReport

Unclear reference

Dear StarkReport, here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batiar&diff=prev&oldid=1143805891 you added the reference "Kateryna Dysa, Cityscapes of Violence in Contemporary Ukrainian Culture, (University of Toronto Press, 2019)" which I cannot verify. Please add more information like ISBN or weblinks. Thank you in advance. -- Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 08:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Language

Dear StarkReport, The 2nd paragraph of the section Ownership of slaves in the article Criticism of Muhammad now reads: "According to Forough Jahanbaksh, Muhammad, never preached the abolition of slavery as a doctrine although, he did moderated the age-old institution of slavery, which was also accepted and endorsed by the other monotheistic religions, Christianity and Judaism, and was a well-established custom of the pre-Islamic world. According to Murray Gordon, Muhammad saw it "as part of the natural order of things". While did improved the condition of slaves, and exhorted his followers to treat kindness and compassion, and encouraged freeing of slaves, he still did not completely abolish the practice." Something has gone wrong here, I think. "did moderated", "While did improved", "treat kindness" etc.? Could you help out? Vysotsky (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vysotsky. I content which is sourced from ^[1] is just showing the critics presenting a critical perspective on Muhammad's stance towards slavery. While acknowledging that Muhammad made efforts to moderate the institution and improve the condition of slaves, critics argue that he did not completely abolish the practice, and perceived slavery as an inherent aspect of the prevailing societal structure.

So the statements such as "did moderated," "While did improved," and "treat kindness" represent specific areas where critics provide due credit while presenting their overall reproving perspective. StarkReport (talk) 06:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Slavery in Islam".

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aisha

I am sorry but I have reverted your 18:48-51 edits at Aisha.^[1] I feel that the various elements of your edits need to be discussed one-by-one on the article talk page.

I have a feeling that the dispute on that page and its talk page is likely to go to WP:ANI. That is not going to be pleasant - see Wikipedia:ANI advice. If we can avoid it, we should.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I think there may have been a misunderstanding as the edit in question was, in fact, the original version created much before me. It seems that DenverCoder made subsequent changes, prompting me to consider reinstating the initial version. StarkReport (talk) 07:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 22:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My advice there is that you listen to other editors when they explain where you got in wrong. I am sure you did not mean to get it wrong - but at least some of the time you did. We all make mistakes - sometimes embarrassing mistakes - it is best to accept that and learn from them.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I tried to provide input to address any possible misconceptions about the edits, albeit inelegantly. StarkReport (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feb 2024

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 02:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the discussion at WP:ANI is not to provide a battleground. Have you thought about the suggestion I made about talk page archiving?-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, not really seeing the need right now. If needed in the future, I'm open to it. Let's put it on hold for the time being. StarkReport (talk) 08:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A huge chunk of Kaalakaa's 02:19, 24 February 2024 report at WP:ANI was devoted to giving examples of Numerous warnings already regarding edit warring and other stuff on his [StarkReport's] talk page. However, he [StarkReport] removed all of them. Kaalakaa said that this proved you were guilty of: WP:BATTLEGROUND & WP:CIR. He/she later wrote that he thought that your using talk page archiving was a pretty good idea.^{17:33, 25 February 2024} -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

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.

TarnishedPath^talk 07:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaalakaa case

Hello, I recently noticed you took the Kaalakaa case to the Wikipedia Administrators. I honestly thank you for this as I have been trying to get this to happen since around August 2023.

I would like to know what the results of the report was if there was any, as I went inactive for a little while.

If you need help, this is the link to my accusations aganist him including how the sources he cited were made by Islamaphobes or with mass historical inaccuracies. Chxeese (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

I have no quarrel with this edit to the article on Aisha. The edit was sensible. You did a really good edit summary that explained why you made the edit (I have seen other edits by you to contentious subjects with brilliant edit summaries.)

But it was not a minor edit. In Wikipedia, "minor edit" has a very specific definition; it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. We both know that on a contentious subject like Aisha, deleting that so-called quotation could easily be the subject of a dispute.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I see. StarkReport (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Input request @ Talk:Jinn

Jinn (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
An input request has been relisted to have more inputs about DUE/UNDUE relevance and fringe-ness at Talk:Jinn#Comparative mythology, Due, Fringe or Undue?.

also Pre-RfC stage info:

Also A user has proposed updates for consideration at this sand box for the article Jinn.

As a discussion facilitator fyi a WP:DUE discussion (some aspects may touch WP:Fringe) is at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC stage's WP:RSN#Hachette Livre and WP:ORN step. After RSN and WP:ORN step, RfC formatting is likely to be discussed at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC in a new sub section.

This input request / intimation is made to you, looking at your previous contribution to the article Islam (Xtool) or talk page there of. Bookku (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Slavery in Islam".

[1]