User talk:QamarBurtuqali

Friendly advice

@QamarBurtuqali, Frankly I have not studied all your edits except for few recent ones. Wikipedia depends a lot on WP:RS. Those topics which are well studied by academic professors always try to give first preference and for finding, reading and quoting such references is always best resort. One can visit https://scholar.google.com/ or https://books.google.com Then there is WP:LIBRARY.

Avoid temptation of reverts, and follow WP:DR. Happy editing. Bookku (talk) 10:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for the friendly advice. I am aware of Wikipedia's policy about "reliable sources," preferring secondary sources. However, in fact, Wikipedia depends on articles citing primary sources and paragraphs written with no citations at all. Sadly, I have encountered Edit Warring by political, unqualified editors at Vital Articles. Indeed, the best defense to Edit Warring is to provide a citation of a reliable secondary source, like a book. :). QamarBurtuqali (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I need some help with ongoing non-constructive Edit Warring and personal attacks

What do I need to do to protect myself against this crap? QamarBurtuqali (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali[reply]

First thing, privacy is supposed to come first read WP:Oversight and WP:Privacy. If any accidental logged out editing happens and ip address need to suppress you can make request to Wikipedia:Oversight#Appointed community oversighters I think through their user talk page-email too. But in that case your email address gets known to the oversight admin.

Bookku (talk) 06:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further tips

Follow WP:AGF
Always remember we all are here for collaborative content improvement so avoid wasting your valuable time and energy in personalizing disputes as much possible.
Always prefer to follow WP:DR for resolving content disputes.
Attempt to resolve content dispute one at a time, point by point. By going behind many at the same time you might end up exhausted.
Best approach is first Add a 'Further reading' section to the articles and academic books and journals which you / and others may refer in future. If that gets deleted still don't fight but note down on the talk page. That's how I prefer to save my energy.
Have an additional special sandbox for yourself there you note down such refs you can not add immediately to the article but you want to remember and also the future content additions and planned discussions. Planning a future discussion in advance at sandbox may help you articulate your points more clearly.
Usually do not accuse anyone on their background / antecedents and first impressions may prove wrong. Also there is some thing called WP:Boomerang.
After taking all the care if any personal apprehension remains just note down on your personal PC cross check multiple times before personalZing and raising personal issue on Wikipedia. I myself prefer to advice and follow WP:DDE protocol (emphasis added).

I hope these tips from my own experience would help you. Bookku (talk) 08:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. QamarBurtuqali (talk) 10:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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.

Bookku (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Without doubt, Islam-related pages are very contentious. :(

QamarBurtuqali (talk) 04:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali[reply]

WP:CTOP covers only select category of articles I suppose as per WP:AC to mandate additional restrictions. In this case articles Hijab and Zina get covered under 'Gender related' articles. Though contentious I am observing first time an edit war in the article Hijab. If WP:DR and WP:DDE followed handling issues can be simpler. Bookku (talk) 09:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]