User talk:VenusFeuerFalle

when searched Qur'an,at the first passage in wikipedia for arabic word sura , the engilsh was given suwar which represents pig in hindi. i would like to request get it reviewed and corrected please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.111.205.105 (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi VenusFeuerFalle! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 00:49, Saturday, December 3, 2016 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Thanks for your Review of Al-Ahad

Hello!

Thanks for paying attention and pointing out that the reference I used said Essay. This was a mistake on my end. I used a citation machine to generate the citation and I picked Essay by mistake. The book is instead an acedemic book that is written by a specialized scholar about the names of God.

The mistake is now fixed.

Thanks for the help!

Yousof YousofSulaiman (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Greetings!

Thank you very much for being civil about it. Many Users see reverts as a personal attack. In most cases, as annoying as reverts might be, are just to protect a neutral viewpoint. If we were to allow essay, master-thesis, self-published sources etc., even if their claims are correct, we run danger into waddling into WP:OR. Therefore, we prioritize the quality of publishing over the actual claims of the sources. Not paying attention to the creditablity is a common mistake even done by experienced editors, especially when the editor is familiar with a topic, they might mistake "correct" sources with authentic ones. Recently I had my edits on demon reverted, because I accidently used an unreliable source for a huge part on Zorastrian demons. It is frustrating, but it needs to be done. I want to let you know that your efforts and ambitions are very much appreciate. with best regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For your helpful comments throughout the GA review of Gender and sexual minorities in the Ottoman Empire. GnocchiFan (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Harut and Marut

The article Harut and Marut you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Harut and Marut and Talk:Harut and Marut/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of A. Parrot -- A. Parrot (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Harut and Marut

The article Harut and Marut you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Harut and Marut for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of A. Parrot -- A. Parrot (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Later changes on sharia

I see that you have reverted some minor changes I made in the introduction of the Sharia article. The purpose of these changes was; Emphasizing the abstract meaning of sharia and thus making the reader understand why fiqh and Ahkam are discussed in the following sentences and not sharia, logical flow, second The expression "qualified jurists" used for muftis, of course I know what this means, but for an encyclopedia, this definition is not a statement that can be taken absolute neutrally. and so on... Thank you for your interestNGC 628 (talk) 07:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

You did not respond to my previous discussion and reverted my later, more far-reaching changes for one simple reason. First of all, I thought you were an arrogant person. But I see that this behavior is related to you being extremely busy. If you want progress regarding the article, discuss it, go into detail, avoid personal and relative evaluations and follow wikipedia policies or, more clearly, go by giving a reason through Wikipedia policies. If you don't have time to do these, you can stop taking ownership of the articles and wait for others to make progress.NGC 628 (talk) 08:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for the late reply, I am indeed oftne busy, and mostly on Wikipedia in my free-time. I do enjoy editing articles. One can learn new thigns and share knowledge with others, idealistically making the world a bit better, and I am happy to see like-minded people.

Regarding the reverts, first I am sorry if you feel overlooked. It was not my intention to ignore any request. Regarding the edits, there was soemthing I thought as a disimporvement of quality.

On the contrary, fiqh, which includes source criticism especially on hadiths and decree methods such as meaning and logical inference of the text, refers to the interpretations of Islamic scholars; ahkam, practical application side of sharia, in a sense, refers to the results reached by scholars with these sources and intellectual methods they use. Fatwas, on the other hand, consist of religious decisions made by muftis on specific issues

is not better than

Arabic, the term sharīʿah refers to God's immutable divine law and this referencing is contrasted with fiqh, which refers to its interpretations by Islamic scholars. Fiqh, practical application side of sharia in a sense, was elaborated over the centuries by legal opinions issued by qualified jurists and sharia has never been the sole valid legal system in Islam historically; it has always been used alongside customary law from the beginning, and applied in courts by ruler-appointed judges, integrated with various economic, criminal and administrative laws issued by Muslim rulers.

Other parts of your edits were actually helpful such as

As can be seen in many examples, classification is relative. For example, believing in the existence and miracles of Awliya is presented as a "condition" for orthodox Islam by many prominent Sunni creed writers such as Al-Tahawi and Nasafi and is accepted in traditional Sunnis and Shi'ism. However, this understanding, along with expressions of respect and visits to the graves of saints, are seen as unacceptable heresy by puritanical and revivalist Islamic movements such as Salafism, Wahhabism and Islamic Modernism.

Although they might need a bit of rephrasing. It is not "relative", but "subjective". However, I could have done this without revert. Nonetheless, I do not see an improvement in your edits of the lead-section. Furthermore, if there is further dispute, I would like to discuss this on the talkpage, since it is more likely that other editors might see it overwhere and can interfere their opinions on that matter.

with kind regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. Once any of my contributions are published, they are no longer mine. If you don't find it useful, you can take it back. However, what you consider unimportant may be important for people living in different geographies. It would be beneficial for the article to progress if you explain it in detail and open it up for discussion if necessary.NGC 628 (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

"However, what you consider unimportant may be important for people living in different geographies. It would be beneficial for the article to progress if you explain it in detail and open it up for discussion if necessary."

fair point. THe one quote I posted, nonetheless, was not a matter of geographic disagreements. This is why I am confident, this is not an improvement. Sharia was never a uniform or codified scripture-like set of rules, and never limited to the Quran and Sunnah alone. It is the favored approach in contemporary times (some also add the founder fathers of the Sunni madhabs), but we cannot make anachronistic claims in an article, especially not in the lead-section. Please note, that we do not want to claim which interpretation should be favored, nor do we want to list all interpretations possible (they would be too many), but limit ourselves to what reliable sources have to say on that matter. When historicans agree that Sharia was not a codified law until the 18th or 19th Century (do not remember the exact date), we cannot give it equal weight than to the opinion of Muslim jurists arguing that "sharia was always Quran and Sunnah alone and the rest is a deviation". Such claims are "intra-religious" and rest more on beliefs than historical data. This does not even mean that the intra-religious opinions are correct, they ultimately rely on the findings not only about written sources, but also societies. As you brought up, the consensus might even shift depending on geographical region. Nonetheless, on Wikipedia, we regard academic consensus as the guideline, and if you are aware of both the possibilities and the limitations, it can be a very helpful tool. Yet, it is, of course not infallable. For example, Wikipedia is, as a tertiary source, the last source updated. New results will first be pulbished in secondary sources, while the primary sources might ahve existed long ago, and only afterthat, then we as Wikipedians discover the secondary sources, it finds its way to Wikipedia. I want to take your advise too heart and have a better eye on reverts especially when I am in a hurry. Wikipedia is done best, when one is relaxed.

with kind regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

First of all, I believe that those who make contributions to Wikipedia by writing and those who retract these contributions with good and correct reasons provide equal service. In this respect, I see every action as a positive contribution. Another point is that with Wikipedia, we, and perhaps the whole society that benefits from it, can benefit from what is written mentally and improve understanding. In my opinion, the most important condition for this is that, in addition to impartiality, "different opinions" are presented without disrupting harmony, taking into account their weights, and especially in an understandable manner.

The issues you mentioned in response will be more understandable to me if you go through concrete examples. For example, it would be useful if you exemplify an anachronism or other problems you detect in my contributions.

Regards from me too.NGC 628 (talk) 08:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind reply and I wholeheartedly agree. I want to check the exat edits to provide an example as soon as I have time, to give an appropriate reply. Currently, I am having a strict schedule again. (strictly speaking, I writing this while working)

with best regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

So, I finally found time (and energy for a reply).

I think my issue was that this part was undone

Fiqh, practical application side of sharia in a sense, was elaborated over the centuries by legal opinions issued by qualified jurists and sharia has never been the sole valid legal system in Islam historically; it has always been used alongside customary law from the beginning, and applied in courts by ruler-appointed judges, integrated with various economic, criminal and administrative laws issued by Muslim rulers.

I think the part with customary law is important, since there was no codified sharia, and Quran and Hadiths rather aided than defined "Sharia Law" in pre-Modern times. I apologize if it was just moved, but I could not find it in the alternative version. Maybe it was also removed by accident (this happens often during larger edits).

with best regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 02:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The phrase that bothered me in terms of impartiality in this section was the phrase "qualified jurists". I took it away and you brought it back.(with last change) NGC 628 (talk) 06:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

What do you object about "qualified jurists"? To derive rulings for the Sharia, one had to be qadi or faqih. A non-qualified scholary opinion has no value in Islamic jurisprudence. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

"Qualified" may be the right word to indicate a degree, but it is also an honorific adjective, which may not be appropriate for Wikipedia's neutrality policies.NGC 628 (talk) 06:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I do not think that "qualified" is used as a honorific, it is pretty much a technical term, just like "authorized exegesis" in reference to "tafsir". In contrast, everyone is doing "exegesis" by reading the Quran, since interpretation is unavoidable, but it has no authority. However, neither "qualified" nor "authority" are honorifics, and I cannot recall anyone using the term to honor anyone. What terminology would fit better in your opinion? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

For example, only mufti or "Islamic legal theorist" would be an appropriate phrase.NGC 628 (talk) 07:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

But is a mufti not exactly that? A "qualified" jurist? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

you are correct but mufti is not only a scholar but also kind of a preacher. We should avoid using "qualified" for muftis, priests etc. it closes all doors of criticism. as bias do exist, whether you like it or not. for eg: we don't say qualified priests said this about their religious scriptures so others research is irrelevant or non qualified. third person/source who has neutrally studied the scriptures is generally more reliable and qualified in this scenario 2409:40E3:6E:A553:51E0:D02A:FD2:DFA2 (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

And you are NGC but not logged in? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not the one who wrote it, but it caught another person's attention.NGC 628 (talk) 06:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I see, I was just confused. Then I will just ignore them, until they add something to the discussion.

What do you think about the distiction between a qualified jurist and a mufti? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The issue is not whether a qualified jurist and a mufti are the same thing, or the quality of the muftis. The use of a word with an honorific meaning for a person or group poses a problem in terms of Wikipedia neutrality. I don't want to discuss this issue any further. If you have no objection, I can correct the article. Even if there are, it may be more beneficial to discuss it with other people who are interested in the subject.NGC 628 (talk) 07:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

(talk page jaguar) But surely "jurist", esp. "qualified jurist", and also words like "professor", are also in some sense "honorifics". Neutral point of view does not mean "no point of view", meaning we can't use any word of import for anyone. Remsense诉 07:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

As you noted accurately "in some sense"NGC 628 (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

What has this to do with "some senses"? I do not want to transgress, but do you understand the language we are communicating? Some of your replies would make sense if you use aid from a translator or AI, as a lot of your replies are completely out of context. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it would have been helpful if you were using the talkpage of the article instead of my personal talkpage. As I said before, "qualified jurist" is no honorific in the English language, but an adjective describing a subject. Therefore, I do not follow your arguement as it rests on wrong assumptions. Comparably, "authorized exegetes of the Quran" is a preferred translation for "mufassirun". Following your arguement, "authorized" would be a "honorific" as well, but it is not. It is simply a translation or a description Further, I do not see how this violates a neutral viewpoint, since it is an objective statement that they are "qualified" to make such statements within the system they are operating in. If you want to close the discussion, it is fine by mean, but this means status quo remains and you edits are not accepted, since you failed to reach a consensus. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Third opinion

I requested for a third opinion regarding the dispute in WikiProject Islam here ☆SuperNinja2☆ 16:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I could not find any dispute listed. Has the dispute been resolved already? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Demon

Looks like you broke several citations with that last (but very needed) edit. Skyerise (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out, I do my best to repair what I ahve broken, needs some time since I also want to update the Islam section. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Yah. Figured you weren't done. Didn't want to make edit conflicts... Skyerise (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

apologizing

sorry for saying something without knowledge about the word sura and suwar 2400:C600:337D:6F7E:1:0:17B6:FA01 (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Ghoul

Hello there @VenusFeuerFalle! I saw that you recently reverted my edit here. The change I made basically rephrased the narrative according to the Hadith provided in the source: https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:2880. The Sunan al-Tirmidhi is one of the authentic sources of hadith; the hadith which narrates the story mentioned in the article does not say that the Ghul promised Abu Ayyub al-Ansari to teach the Ayat Al-Kursi, rather it says that the Ghul told him the benefit of reciting the Ayat Al-Kursi. This would be the most authentic source we can get for this story, if you want me to have a look at some other source, like which you mentioned in your edit summary, then please do so. If not, I would request you to please undo your edit. Thank you. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 23:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow users to conduct research on their own. YOu can take from my main-page: "Original Research: Wikipedia gathers researched information together, but does not do research itself. Doing research yourself (Original Research) is a great thing in science, but not in writing an encyclopedia. Remember what the project is about creating an encyclopedia, not a promoting your research findings."

You edit further had a lot of typos. If the current source is a primary source as well, you are free to remove this part entirely. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello there @VenusFeuerFalle. With all due respect, I am aware about Wikipedia's policies on original research. I find your opening statement, Wikipedia does not allow users to conduct research on their own, confusing. I do not consider the current source as a primary source since it is a Hadith that was preserved more than a thousand years ago. Furthermore, you are not addressing my concern. The source/hadith does not imply anywhere that the Ghul promised to teach Ayat Al-Kursi to anyone; if you read the source, you can easily interpret that the Ghul talked about the benefits of reciting Ayat Al-Kursi, rather than promising to teach it. You also mentioned that my edit had a "lot of" typos, from what i can see is that in my edit I misspelled 'information' as 'inofrmation'. Your reply here also has a "lot of" grammatical errors which I can point to. Anyways, I am editing the article as I see fit. If you can sufficiently address my concerns, I will revert myself. Until then, please don't revert my edit without proper explanation. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 20:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

To ensure that there are no concerns about the statement being backed up by a primary source, I have replaced it with a better one. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 20:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much, it is indeed much better and helps to keep WP:NPOV. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

third opinion request

A request for a third opinion on Talk:Jinn#Belief_in_jinn_and_belief_in_Islam has been made at Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements --Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle, @Louis P. Boog

I came here from WP:3O to confirm whether VFF is communicated about WP:3O listing. I respect both of you as good WP editors.

I do have following suggestions to facilitate better discussion, and inputs by other users.

• Separate edit disagreements issue by issue - and preferably number them to understand how many content disagreement exists.
• Provide issue wise synopsis mentioning edit dif, Which sentence one user wants and the alternate competing suggestion by other user; why does it matter to either side; What are the policies and guidelines useful to provide inputs.
• I suppose WP:Edit summary is usually brief statement to indicate what the edit is about and many times may not suffice as sufficient synopsis to understand the issue for other Wikipedia users.

I hope and wish issues get amicably sorted out in near future. Wish you happy editing to both of you. Bookku (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Yazidis page

I saw you reverted an edit removing the claim that said that in the modern day, Yazidis face persecution from the PKK and ISIS. You said that the article makes it clear that the PKK is not helping Yazidis in their homeland despite saving them from ISIS, but not only is subjectively “not helping” them in the opinion of this article not even close to the same as claiming they’re being actively persecuted by them, the source itself is unreliable, as per Wikipedia’s own page, Milliyet is a right wing, Turkish nationalist newspaper, making it an unreliable source. Whether or not you think the YBŞ and thus PKK’s presence in Shengal is “helping them” is irrelevant to the claim that they face active persecution from them, especially on the same level as ISIS. Not to mention the fact that them “turning it into a warzone” still doesn’t change the fact that it’s Turkey who are conducting drone strikes there. Please remove the claim that Yazidis are persecuted by the PKK from the article, regardless of whether or not you like them, the sources are terrible by Wikipedia standards and the argument doesn’t even make sense Serok Ayris (talk) 12:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Right-Wing does not mean "inaccurate". There are a lot of right-wing news, recently, sources from Israel regarding the Middle Eastern conflict.

The PKK is charged with taking young Kurdish people in the Eastern regions of Turkey to grom them into a terrorist organization. This is pretty much persecution.

I know there can be different viewpoints and I am usually willing to discuss disputes out, but I have my limits when we actively support or defend terrorists organization. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

First of all, the PKK disputes claims of kidnapping, as do its supporters, secondly, how does that mean they persecute Yazidis? Are we now gonna say Palestinians as an ethnicity are persecuted by Hamas because according to Israel they “turned Gaza into their base”? No, because thinking something is bad for a people is not equal to active persecution. Regardless of your views on them, claiming the PKK “persecutes” Yazidis on anywhere near the same level of ISIS using a biased source with terrible arguments that don’t make any sense is essentially genocide denial, as you are equating a group that saved Yazidis and gave them the means to fight back against ISIS with the group that committed genocide against them. Perhaps you can put something in the article saying “some people argue the PKK’s presence in Sinjar negatively affects Yazidis” but you’d also have to mention the fact that TURKEY does these airstrikes in the first place. Putting the blame solely on the PKK’s presence and then using this as an excuse to compare them to ISIS is absolutely ridiculous. This isn’t even about if you like them or not, this is just obviously ridiculous and biased language towards a Turkish perspective, and if we were to keep this ridiculous comparison, we might as well add Turkey to the list of things persecuting them considering the drone strikes Serok Ayris (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Yazidis on anywhere near the same level of ISIS using a biased source with terrible arguments that don’t make any sense is essentially genocide denial, as you are equating a group that saved Yazidis and gave them the means to fight back against ISIS with the group that committed genocide against them. Perhaps you can put something in the article saying “

you are putting words into my mouth. If you think the source belongs to unreliable sources bring this issue fourth there it belongs, although I already suspect you have your own personal view on this. And as I said, I have my boundaries, and then we even consider the opinion of terrorists as potential "minor opinion", they are crossed. It is like claiming that the Islamic flag is identical with the black flag of ISIS. All this is just advertising or promoting deviant groups to push their own agenda. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not your terrorist recruitment.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism

Just noticed your removal of the use of a Masters thesis on Jinn; FYI, we've also got a problem editor trying to use them on Zoroastrianism. Skyerise (talk) 12:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I added Zorastrianism to my watchlist to keep an eye on it. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I reviewed the discussion by now. The source added seems to be published by the Journal Homo Oeconomicus by Springer Nature. Springer Nature is a peer review publisher which meets the criteria for a reliable source. I do not want to heat up the discussion, so before I confuse things, I sought to consult you that it this point, I think the other user might be right. Is it possible that something has been overlooked here?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

There were two sources involved. The one removed was a Master's thesis. The one restored is the one you mentioned. The editor has the habit of citing with bare links, which did lead to a bit of confusion for a minute. Skyerise (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I see, bad formatting can be a problem. I am glad you help out with that on many articles. Also, thanks for clarification. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion kinda escalted, I am not sure if I can keep track with what exactly is going on now. I want to keep an eye on it and unreasonable changes on the main article though. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding deletion of edits in Jinn article by you. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard".The discussion is about the topic Jinn.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Excuse my occasional postmodernism

My personal academic projects often involve how sets (in the formal sense of the word) can be used to destabilize categories - insert constant references to Deleuze, Quentin Meillassoux and Borges here - so looking at a religion where there does appear to be a healthy debate regarding clear categorization is just like... it's like candy to me being perfectly honest. It's why I've been interested in the political-economic assessment of the transition from polytheism to monotheism that Researcher1988 found. It's, frankly, directly up my alley. But I want to assure you I'm not going to let these personal preoccupations impact article copy beyond precisely what I've been arguing for - that we don't put in Wiki voice statements that are disputed within the academy and, instead, describe the terms of the dispute. Simonm223 (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I would be open to disregard classifications of religions altogether, since it is a disputed matter. However, then it needs to be done equally. A similar issue has arisen recently on a Christian and Islamic talkpage about the term "Abrahamic religion". However, if we go with the general consensus, Zorastrianism is the prime example of Dualism just next to Manichaeism. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

My opinion

@VenusFeuerFalle, May be you missed on my advice to LPB on their talk page, I suppose you would find that was fair enough.

Suggested to join back to help resolve content dispute with the other editor

I am firm believer in we are here for focusing content, that is how I do have impression about you too. I suggested taking the discussion back to the track of content dispute resolution course if it has gone off the track. After my advice to be fair to LPB opted for WP:DRN rather than escalating on personal lines. I learned my own mistakes from WP:DR and WP:RfC mechanism. Rather than one single person explaining different people have different ways to explain and that helped me. What happens new people do not know how to approach WP:RSN and confirm reliability, writing a neutral synopsis WP:3O DRN and RfC. In my case experienced users helped me write all those things for me in spite of their different views on content. That helped me a lot. To be fair LPB at least uses refs, LPB are content oriented enough and I look forward LPB use more reliable academic sources. MOS is important but many other copy-edit templates and copy-editors, and copy editors guild can help. Of course you would appreciate I told LPB to take your legitimate concerns into account. Hence I suggest rather than stretching things on personal level joining back to their content side concerns. I hope you would consider point that even many GA and FA articles lapse after some years when editors looking after them retire at some point of time. That does not mean articles not be taken to GA but best way to take them to that level taking other users too in confidence so when we retire some users remains to take care of the same. Who can be better than who take interest in the article, if we succeed in mentoring them better. I know that's additional hard work, but can there be any better way out than taking others on board and mentoring. You would appreciate I am among those few who helps calming down. I would suggest you the same thing to preferably collapse personal aspects at the article talk page and resume with content aspect again with AGF if you do not mind. I would be very much interested in sharing my content related views for, and look forward to betterment of the article.

Wish you happy editing and wish your dreams to take articles to GA materialize.

Bookku (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope they take your concerns to heart. I appreciate the User's ambition, but if they constantly ignore any advise and as soon as they are faced with a revert takes it somehow personal (I see no alternative to explain their behaviour), I see no future. Maybe they need to hear this advise by another editor. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Iblis

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Iblis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of A. Parrot -- A. Parrot (talk) 07:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Muhammad in Islam/1

Is there a reason you've commented out your reasons for reassessment? Currently the situation here is kinda confusing as to what you want to do here. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I followed the manual steps for reassessment as per WP:GAR. Step 3 states that my "rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria." I thought I was exactly doing that. Please let me know, if there are any misunderstandings and where they lie at. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Is this ok now?

Referring to [1]. I don't think so. Not sure if he's avoided copyvio again, but the edit looks pretty poor, including his clumsy English (IMHO) which he justified in an edit summary. He's messing up a lot of articles, doesn't understand yet he needs to source, etc. Doug Weller talk 07:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)