User talk:Maqdisi117
Dear Maqdisi007,
Obviously, you are new here and you have created a nickname to be able to change this page. First of all, welcome! I will have a few words about what you add to this page. I hope it works.
You say that you are contacted to Aksoy and according to you, he confirm what you say!!! First, let me say that personal contacts are not important. It doesn't mean anything in the scientific area or context. Even if you claim to have seen Munkar and Nakir, this fact does not change. ;) Moreover, it is not possible for the researcher to tell you something completely different from his text. Here is a link to his work and it is very clear what he is saying there. There is also an abstract in English! Therefore it is uncorrect what you wrote here (in the balk for notes about adding and changing). If you could read Turkish, you could not write the researcher's surname incorrectly.
Secondly; A.J. Wensinck is a great name in Islamology. That's true. But the point is different. About a hundred years ago he wrote very short text about Munkar and Nakir -even not two pages- in the Encyclopedia of Islam and he said that the origins of these figures are unknown. Aksoy's research shows us that they are transformations of Nergal. At least he provides convincing information and connections. Second study is from 2017, just new. Therefore, Wensinck couldn't say something about Aksoy's thesis as you tried to mean. Since you have not read text by Aksoy, you are writing wrong or unnecessary points here. You may only say that Wensinck was unclear about the origin of these figures or he said nothing about their origins. But if you write that "in stark contrast, scholar A. J. Wensinck found the association of Munkar and Nakir to the root NKR to be unlikely, thus rendering any relationship with Nergal tenuous at best," it means you just want to manipulate readers. One more time, of course Wensinck is certainly a great name, but like everyone else, he is not infallible...
On the other hand, I urge you not only to look at Wensinck's short article, which says 'their origin is unknown', before coming to a conclusion about Munkar and Nekir. Find an acquaintance and read Aksoy's extensive research in Turkish. If you re-do this kind of manipulation, you can be sure I don't argue with you anymore. This is nothing but a friendly explanation. I hope you understand it. Please don't change the page as you did before! Greetings Tarasyani (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Dear Tarasyani,
If you wish to discuss any disputations, you may address them on the article's Talk Page. Thank you.
Maqdisi117 (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Maqdisi117
September 2020
[edit]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Qira'at has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: Qira'at was changed by Maqdisi117 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.909341 on 2020-09-06T23:36:18+00:00
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Transcendental36. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Abraha, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Transcendental36 (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Alert
[edit]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
--Shrike (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:A/I/PIA
All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict. On primary articles, this prohibition is preferably to be enforced by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) but this is not mandatory. On pages with related content, or on primary articles where ECP is not feasible, the 500/30 Rule may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring
December 2020
[edit] Hello, I'm AleatoryPonderings. An edit that you recently made to Mohsen Fakhrizadeh seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello Maqdisi117. Your edits at People's Mujahedin of Iran have been referred to at AN. The concern expressed is that you were a new person with less than 500 edits who was participating in the RfC. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
People's Mujahedin of Iran is covered by community sanctions under WP:GS/IRANPOL
[edit] | This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1978 Iranian politics. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions – such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks – on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. |
EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Notification
[edit]Notification of possible SPI involving you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
@Stefka Bulgaria:: LOL. Maqdisi117 (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
How can I tag images for follow-up?
[edit] | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
How can I tag images I've made for follow-up by a Wiki artist who can provide a better image?
Thank you Maqdisi117 (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure what you mean? Could you elaborate/provide examples of a photo that you're talking about and what you want done? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Graphics Lab might be able to assist you. 78.28.44.204 (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The article Causal pie model has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
noevidencethis is more than a minor technique of presentation
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 10:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Being a Public Health major, I vehemently disagree with your interpretation of Causal Pies being a merely "minor technique of presentation" when it is considered a very important theoretical model in describing the progression of diseases. Therefore, it deserves a page of its own.Maqdisi117 (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I've moved your comments on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics/Evidence to the talk page, if you would like to make a rebuttal to the evidence then you can create your own section on the evidence page, but please do not respond inline to the evidence. CodeLyokotalk 23:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
I have nothing to rebut as I'm not involved in whatever Stefka has insinuated. Edits that he has deemed to be evidence are based on an ad hoc rationalization process, something which I'm not even going to entertain. Maqdisi117 (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)