User talk:Kabul madras

September 2024

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Ba 'Alawi sada. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Abo Yemen ✉ 17:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kabul madras (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kabul madras (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A

l Kabul madras (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All references I used in the article comply with Wikipedia's rules. Kabul madras (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please read the wikipedia rules before reverting my edit Abo Yemen ✉ 06:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

already read it . Kabul madras (talk) 07:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are aware that you are basically doing OR on wikipedia? You are also violating the WP:3RR rule. You are setting yourself up for a block on wikipedia Abo Yemen ✉ 08:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All references used follow Wikipedia guidelines and are not personal research. The presented point of view is indeed different, and Wikipedia does not prohibit the presentation of different viewpoints. Kabul madras (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are adding your own synthesis which is not what is stated on the so-called "references" that you have put in the article. You are also making claims like saying "Many" instead of "some" when that is not the case. Anyways, I have reported you and the admins will look at your case Abo Yemen ✉ 12:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Ba 'Alawi sada shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Abo Yemen ✉ 08:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you can bring this problem to noticoboard ask the admins to take a look at this and decide if my edits break any Wikipedia rules. Kabul madras (talk) 11:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we were both blocked and then unblocked by an administrator named@JBW JBW. So, while there's an admin available, I'll explain the issue in the Ba'alawi Sada article to admin @JBW. I edited the article using clear references and in accordance with Wikipedia's rules. Afterward, a user named Abo Yemen repeatedly reverted my edits. Abo Yemen should have discussed this issue on the article's talk page first, but he didn't and instead chose to talk on my user page. Our debate centers around two points, as seen in the edit history. In my opinion, my edits included appropriate references according to Wikipedia policy.@Abo Yemen objected because my edits significantly differed from the claims in the Sada Ba'alawi article. I insisted on including my edits at the beginning of the article to emphasize the controversy surrounding their claim of being descendants of Prophet Muhammad. Abo Yemen seemed to object to this. This is the reason for the repeated edits by me and Abo Yemen. Kabul madras (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abo Yemen and Kabul madras: First of all, my apologies for the block of Kabul madras, which was a pure mistake, made by clicking the wrong link. However, my block of Abo Yemen was a rather different matter. Abo Yemen, you have posted a warning to Kabul madras about a possible block for edit-warring when you too were involved in the same edit-war; under those circumstances blocking was a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I decided to remove the block and give you another chance when I realised that you had not continued the edit-war after posting the warning.

I do understand the situation you have described, Kabul madras, but the fact is that both of you have been edit-warring. Please bear in mind, both of you, that being convinced that your edits are right does not exempt you from the edit-warring policy. Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, basically, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you are convinced that you are right". Indeed, it would be completely meaningless to have an edit warring policy which exempted any editor who was convinced that they were right, as in most edit wars everybody involved thinks they are right.

I prefer not to get involved in the dispute about content of the article, but instead to concentrate on the ways in which you can try to deal with that dispute, of which edit-warring is not a good one. Of course you should discuss the issues on the article's talk page, and I hope you will, but it does look as though there may be too wide a gap between your respective views for there to be any realistic chance of reaching agreement, so it may help to look at the policy on dispute resolution. The section Requesting other editors' help for content disputes may be helpful; perhaps particularly the part about requesting a third opinion. JBW (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My bad on participating in the edit war, but how is he allowed to add his original research on the article?? None of the sources that he cited says anything about how many people in Indonesia dispute or even reject outright the validity of Ba 'Alawi sada linkage with Islamic prophet Muhammad. In fact what do indonesians have to do with an Arab family?

He also used sources such as youtube polls, Indonesian youtube videos, used this script of "Sunan al-Tirmidi" (which doesn't verify what he claimed in the article), some familytreedna.com spreadsheets, and whatever the fuck this is supposed to prove.

Just going for a lil trip on the sources that he used just shows how biased and unreliable those sources are, Especially for an article about a living family that should be treated like a BLP Abo Yemen ✉ 16:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW pinging just in case you have pings off Abo Yemen ✉ 16:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will answer the question above on the noticeboard. Kabul madras (talk) 23:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Abo Yemen ✉ 15:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Kabul madras (talk) 00:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]