User talk:Steeringly

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or sock puppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!

June 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ahmadiyya. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. DBig Xray 10:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding some more guidelines on the sidebar {{Guideline list}} --DBig Xray 11:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I am such a Newb when it comes to wikipedia. Much appreciated (Steeringly (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Ahmadiyya. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. You know this is being discussed, you know that you don't have consensus, and you know that you've been told that this is not NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Ahmadiyya‎. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug, What exactly are you referring too? I think your potentially exercising an abuse of your position to limit legitimate changes. Can you cite any wikirules that corroborate this, as I am unclear what I have done? How do I report the potential bias of an administrator? (Steeringly (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

You can go to WP:ANI but I haven't used my Admin tools, I've been advising you about policy. The source you added does not call them heterodox but says they are separated from Sunni and other Muslims, and in any case I believe that we cannot, in Wikipedia's voice, call any religion heterodox, we can only report that others do. Please, if you decide to go to ANI, read WP:Boomerang. Dougweller (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug, I have shown that the article itself confirms that the Ahmadiyya are specifically Heterodox, I have evidenced this from the Ahmadiyya website and other sources. (Steeringly (talk) 09:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hello Steeringly, I am glad that you are participating in the discussion on the talk page of Ahmadiyya. Its generally seen that new users who are only aware of one side of the story find the current state of article as incorrect and accordingly they feel that their side of the story is the correct side. But Wiki articles have to follow a neutral path and give a world view of the subject. As you are new here it would be benefecial for you to read these articles below (if you have not already read these)

WP:NPOV, WP:PRIMARY, WP:RS,
WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:FRINGE
WP:DR and WP:CONSENSUS (these two must always be kept in mind)

Also i would request you to please assume good faith with Dougweller, and do not accuse him wrongly, So far he has not used any of his admin powers against you and I know he will never. It would be best for the article if you could work out a WP:CONSENSUS on talk, see the various steps, how to make one. Later on if you feel that is necessary you can take a WP:RFC. but please do not edit war your own version without discussing first. thanks --DBig Xray 10:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I am sure you are right regarding Doug. Clearly he is a valuable contributer. Regards (Steeringly (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

And you are an equally valuable contributor, kindly do not get offended and use the time to understand the guidelines that I have posted above and on the sidebar on the right. So that when you return you can contribute constructively without violating guidelines.--DBig Xray 07:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DBig Xray has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

July 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Ahmadiyya. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. v/r - T P 13:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Steeringly (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have fully explained my reasons why this is not edit warring in our detailed conversations in the Talk page and also the Islam page. if you look through the history of the conversations it was agreed that whilst controversial it was a legitimate entry. By definition it is not edit warring The administrator should be warned for not being objective instead he is militantly protecting an article from scholarly amendments. I have explained at length the reason for the changes and have a full grounding in the area of both Islam and Ahmadiyya. I have not requested Islamic be removed from the article after discussion that self identity is enough to go against consensus. I have simply tried to add a scholarly amendment which supports the flow of the article.Steeringly (talk) 13:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You evidently think that repeatedly reverting is not edit warring as long as your edits are "right". In addition to your statement above, on the article talk page you wrote "I believe this is exempt under the guidelines of WP:EW as I have clearly demonstrated that the article contrary to your assertions is improved by the changes. I believe you are incorrectly citing the 3RR rule when a contributor is trying to make legitimate change to an article." However, edit warring is repeatedly reverting, and the fact that you are convinced that your edits were right does not stop it being edit warring. In fact, the policy on edit warring would be meaningless if it said "unless you believe you are right", as in almost all edit wars all the participants believe they are right. Edit wars usually involve two or more editors who all believe that they are "trying to make legitimate change to an article."JamesBWatson (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Just to make it clear, I semi-protected the article before all this due to IP vandalism. I have not used my tools in this debate and gone to some length to suggest venues where Steeringly can discuss this and pointed him to policies and guidelines. Steeringly has not had consensus on the article talk page and has continued to insert his preferred version despite this (and called me a vandal for reverting him). Before this block, and in time for Steeringly to take part, I raised the NPOV issue at [{WP:NPOVN]] but he hasn't participated there. He's also used sources to support his position (that the article should assert in Wikipedia's voice that Ahdmadiyya is heterodox, rather than point out that many Muslims, etc believe it to be heterodox) with sources that do not make this statement although he interprets them as though they do. His only edits relate to this article. And he's been warned about edit warring enough so that he should know his edits aren't exempt as he's claimed. I've been tempted to go to ANI or AIV but refrained, asking instead an uninvolved editor, DBigXray for his help which he gave above. Dougweller (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that and I was a bit concerned at first but it took only very basic looking to realize that the protection was not related to Steeringly which is why I didn't bring it up with you.--v/r - T P 15:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Uninvolved" but close associate. I agree you are right Heterodox is inappropriate. I am understanding more about what is and isnt acceptable for WP. People make mistakes and I genuinely am trying to make acceptable change to the article. I have to point out that you are incorrect Doug some of the links affirmed my statement, others I agree suggested it was the opinion of Muslims. I hadnt participated on [{WP:NPOVN]] as I wasn't aware it was there. Treat me like a new student regarding WP otherwise of course I will miss certain things. My only edits relate to this article as I am new to WP. I can edit a few other things if it helps. Where can I read more about consensus? (Steeringly (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Where can I read more about consensus? All the links you need to know are here on User_talk:Steeringly#Your_recent_edits--DBig Xray 08:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Steeringly (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead. I more clearly understand the issue of why Heterodox is inappropriate language without specifying who believes it. It is not for WP to categorically state what is and is not Heterodox

Decline reason:

This is a copy-paste of part of the instructions for appealing a block, followed by a sentence which has nothing to do with edit-warring, which is the reason for your block. There is nothing here that would be a reason to overturn a valid block. 48 hours is not a long time; while you wait for your block to expire, you could carefully read the rules about edit-warring, which will help you when you return. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I don't actually think you understand the reason for your block at all. You were not blocked for use of the word "heterodox" - that would be something to discuss on the article Talk page and decide by consensus. What you were blocked for is edit warring, which is the repeated re-insertion of your own changes, whether they are right or not, after they have been contested and reverted. So even if "heterodox" was appropriate, you were still edit warring and would still have been blocked - your being right would not have allowed you to edit war. Do you understand that key point? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boing boing boing... Sorry I didnt make my self clear, I understood the reasons for my block. The only reason I was edit warring as I know it now was, was because of the use of the word heterodox. I understood that it was unacceptable to use heterodox and therefore the reason for my edit warring was removed, and I now fully comprehend the reason edit warring is inapropriate and counter productive. But nonetheless thanks anyway (Steeringly (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Ahmadiyya suggestion

Hello Steeringly. I have got involved in the debate on the talk page for this article which you have probably seen. When your block expires, can I suggest you calmly make a suggestion there about some alternative to using the word "heterodox", which I now see can't be used in that way in the lead paragraph (because Wikipedia itself is not in a position to rule on what is orthodox/heterodox in a religion). Also if you can explain what you intend, other editors may be able to help to arrive at a consensus.

If you just continue with re-inserting the word you likely be blocked again.

Thanks Mcewan (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mcewan, I appreciate your advice. As someone new to wikipedia I suppose I need to learn the correct procedures, then actually adhere to them. Otherwise WP would be a mess I suppose. It's incredibly frustrating to simply have administrators and wikipedians who have personal reasons to protect a page and users blocking any suggestion of change without coming up with any alternative or compromise. I can appreciate why heterodox cannot be used in this article, despite it being sanctified by the Ahmadiyya Muslims themselves. Equally so I raised the question of the legitimacy of calling them an Islamic revival movement which is clearly in breach of NPOV because it is stating categorically and not raising the wealth of opinions evidence both primary and secondary to the contrary. The cited evidence for the quotation I elaborately unravelled as weak by Simon Valentine. That aside I think perhaps we could move forward with "Minority" Islamic Revival Movement. That wouldnt appear to be in breach of NPOV as they are clearly a minority group according to all major sources. So far people have refused to enter into discussion, then other people are contacted who know very little about the issue who simply take the side of the administrator without any knowledge simply because I am new to WP. I have a genuine interest in balancing the article but no one else is suggesting any kind of change. (Steeringly (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Um, I've been discussing it with you. I've not been resistant to saying they are considered heterodox by many Muslims. I certainly support having the article state they are illegal in some places. I don't care if they are called a revival movement. Up until now my interest has been preventing vandalism, specifically pov vandalism trying to change Islamic to non-Islamic. I've had next to no involvement in actually editing the article. I don't think any of the editors have any personal preferences other than to make sure it meets our policies and guidelines, and you need to read WP:AGF. Attacking other editors or impugning their motives will not get you very far. I don't think any of the articles belong to any Islamic religion - we all just care about Wikipedia. And I'm not the only Admin involved, by the way. Dougweller (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Doug. My time in the Sin Bin has given my overactive imagination time to cool off. I have read the rules over a few times and hopefully will contribute to consensus. (Steeringly (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Very glad to hear that. I really have been trying to help you both edit and avoid being blocked (or topic banned, you can be banned from a whole topic, eg Islamic related articles). That would be a shame. The important thing for you now is to avoid edit warring or anything that looks like it, and to listen to people. Oh, and be patient. That's key. We don't have to fix everything at once. It's easy to forget that, I know I do at times. And as I think I've said, I'm not really interested in editing the article, but I will try to help keep it NPOV. And this particular religious group has a lot of editors, mainly IPs, attacking it, not just in the article you've been editing but in others, eg I reverted some random name calling of them in another article today. I'm not sure why I've ended up with a lot of Islamic related articles on my watch list, but I seem to have quite a few now. Dougweller (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I might make a few suggestions. One, I am currently looking at the Ahmadiyyah entry written in 2005 by Yohanan Friedman in the Encyclopedia of Religion, edited by Lindsay Jones, published that same year. So far as I can see, that source is possibly the most highly regarded reference source in the field, although, obviously, like any other huge 10,000 page work, some of the articles will be better than others. This article is on pages 200-201 of the first volume. Anyway, the first sentence says "The Ahmadiyah (or Ahmadiyya) movement is a modern Muslim messianic movement..." That particular phrasing might be the best option available. First, by pretty much any standards, a group founded in 1889 is generally counted as "modern", at least in the religion field. The fact that it is "messianic" is both accurate, and, in general, an indication that the beliefs it proposes are significantly different than those that came before. Messianic claimants have been, so far as I can tell, generally rather un-orthodox and belief in them has tended to be rejected by the pre-existing groups in the field.

Also, I think that in general it might help if you got a bit more experience in working and developing other articles, which might not be as inherently controversial. There are I think 13 articles which have entires in the Jones Encyclopedia of Religion which are still at "stub" class, as can be seen from the statistics page found at WP:ISLAM. I'm fairly sure that there are at least a few others which don't even exist yet, which can be found in the list I created of the articles there at User:John Carter/Religion articles. Those articles are probably at least as important to Islamic content here as the Ahmadiyya article is, but they are still in much worse shape. It might be helpful for you as an editor to maybe get a bit of time in with less controversial articles, and getting a bit better feel for how things work around here in terms of style, referencing, and so forth. Anyway, just a few ideas. John Carter (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Ahmadiyya. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Pass a Method talk 22:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]