User talk:StarkReport

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]

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]

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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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]

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]

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]

You have recently edited a page related to the

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

Ctopics/aware

}} template.

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

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]

What was the reason that you removed a content taken from a peer reviewed source which is accepted globally? Why should there needs to be a consensus if a the source is acceptable? The author is Ibn Ishaq and the translator is Alfred Guillaume. Do you have any idea who they are in the Islamic world?

Your undoing cited revision is unjustified. Please refrain from that. Kawrno Baba (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify.

The mere presence of a certain story in an ancient Islamic book does not mean that it is a reliable story according to Islamic rules. Because ancient Islamic books collect reliable and unreliable narratives. There is a science called Islamic Hadith studies in order to distinguish reliable narrations from unreliable ones. This is done by studying the chains of transmission of the story. The story of the death of Kinana ibn al-Rabi’ was mentioned by Ibn Ishaq, without a chain of transmission. Any story about the Prophet Muhammad without a chain of transmission is considered unreliable according to the rules of Islamic Hadith studies.

https://www.islamweb.net/ar/fatwa/119021/%D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%AC%D8%A9-%D9%82%D8%B5%D8%A9-%D8%AA%D8%B9%D8%B0%D9%8A%D8%A8-%D9%83%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%B9

Therefore, whoever wants to mention such stories in Wikipedia must accept in return the mention of the Islamic point of view, which considers it an unreliable story. 83.185.93.241 (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you two the same person? Kawrno Baba (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the slightest. StarkReport (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in vandalism according to the reverts you have made on Aisha‎, Abdullah ibn Abd al-Muttalib, Kenana ibn al-Rabi‎, Safiyya bint Huyayy, Criticism of Muhammad‎, Ali Sina (activist)‎. This means that you are deliberately removing properly cited materials or citation requirements to contents you think should not be published or questioned although other editors disagree. 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.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. Kawrno Baba (talk) 07:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than copying and pasting the template, consider reading WP:CON. StarkReport (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me you lack knowledge in Islam. For example, you reverted my edit on Kenana ibn al-Rabi saying that the 'death' part was already there, so my content was redundant. Upon giving a closure look I found what I did wrong.

There is a part where the death of al-Rabi is mentioned which I overlooked. Therefore you undid my revision. While the outcome is valid, there is a mistake. If you understood Islam, you should have corrected al-Rabi to Kenana ibn al-Rabi. But you did not as you took al-Rabi as last name just like names in English language; al-Rabi is his father's name. I have corrected it.

As for the article for Aisha, you don't understand why it is a big issue that she used to play with dolls when her marriage got consummated. Which indicates you don't understand Shariah law, also you are not familiar with the debates associated with Aisha's marriage consummation.

In future please create a topic on talk page of articles related with Islam before reverting any cited content as it is crystal clear you do not have in-depth knowledge of Islam, its customs, and debates concerning it. You seem to edit solely based on how logic works in English language and associated cultures. Kawrno Baba (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify. Aisha playing with dolls is not conclusive evidence that she was not an adult. Because Muslim scholars who consider children’s dolls an exception to the prohibition of statues differ in their views. Is this exception only for children or does it even include those who have reached the age of maturity?

There are those who based their evidence on the story of Aisha and her playing with dolls that the exception includes even adults because there is no evidence that she left those dolls when she reached adulthood.

https://islamqa.info/ar/answers/175405/%D9%87%D9%84-%D8%A7%D8%AA%D8%AE%D8%A7%D8%B0-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%85%D9%89-%D8%AE%D8%A7%D8%B5-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%AB-%D9%88%D9%87%D9%84-%D9%8A%D8%AC%D9%88%D8%B2-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%A8-%D8%A8%D9%87%D8%A7-%D8%A8%D8%B9%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D9%84%D9%88%D8%BA 83.185.93.241 (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]