User talk:Snuish2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hi Snuish2! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Deleting material en masse
I noticed over 80% of your edits are removing material, and all of edits belongs to highly sensitive areas (religion and politics). Please note what based on character of your edits, your current lack of experience and discussion on User_talk:Trurle, the significant deviations from the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view are suspected. I recommend you to pause editing or to edit in a less contentious fields for a while.Trurle (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- I appreciate your concern. However, I believe all of my edits are consistent with Wikipedia policy. If you can point out something more specific, that would be useful. Snuish2 (talk) 07:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, make a few glances.
- International Institute of Islamic Thought, your edit clearly falls to Wikipedia:Content removal or more specifically to Wikipedia:Blanking sections sometimes violates policies guidelines violation, as you did not provide enough time (few weeks based on my experience) for discussion of section removal on talk page. Actually you removed section before posting on talk page. Could you manually revert a change?
- Mass-deletion of The Investigative Project on Terrorism links. Although i agree the site is generally not reliable, it is not specifically listed in any wikipedia blacklist, therefore its publications should be treated on one-by-one basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trurle (talk • contribs) 07:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, this is very useful. I don't think I need to wait a few weeks on International Institute of Islamic Thought per WP:BOLD. If an editor reinserts the material, I'm happy to discuss. I will consider discussing The Investigative Project on Terrorism and other sources I removed on WP:RSN if it's an issue, but the sources I removed are very similar to Jihad Watch, FrontPage Magazine, and WorldNetDaily, all of which are banned on WP:RSPSRC. Snuish2 (talk) 07:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, International Institute of Islamic Thought i will revert for now and add proper tags to section bringing attention to discussion. WP:BOLD is ok, but the topic is not that urgent to apply for it.
- In the Muhammad al-Asi you removed the contents without proper check for references. Please note what first action on finding unreliable reference is to check if some reliable references with same contents can be found. In this case formally reliable source contains same contents about "We have a psychosis in the Jewish community that is unable to co-exist equally and brotherly with other human beings" what you deleted. Revert yourself and add proper (reliable) reference.
- Israr Ahmed removal of data is ok as the reference chain seems to be broken at The Investigative Project on Terrorism, indicating a high likelihood of fabricated data.
- Please check other pages you modified, and revise according to the two examples above.Trurle (talk) 07:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- Trurle, I'm not sure the guidance you're providing to me here is entirely correct. WP:BOLD doesn't require urgency in articles, and your restoration of that material in the International Institute of Islamic Thought is problematic because the sources don't establish that the content should be posted there -- this is a WP:WEIGHT concern in addition to most of the sources being unreliable. If you're restoring material, you need to address the concerns brought up (see WP:BURDEN). It's not appropriate to leave in poorly sourced material that may damage the reputation of groups or individuals.
- The OC Register article you provided for Muhammad al-Asi is an unattributed opinion piece/editorial, so it's a primary source. I'm not going to use that to insert material in a biography per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Feel free to do that if you're inclined and you think it's not problematic to do so. Snuish2 (talk) 08:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Standard of referencing for contested topics
I see your metrics (added vs deleted material, and neutrality) has improved significantly in recent weeks. I would just recommend to support each statement by reference, as i marked one deficit in WikiIslam. Please remember what unsourced statements could be challenged, and typically been challenged on highly contested pages. Especially on religion-related pages.Trurle (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
FFI at ORN
Hello, I finally had the time to go to the Original Research noticeboard for the FFI-article. You can find it at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Fath_Freedom_International. Best regards, and a happy 2021,Jeff5102 (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I'll try to respond tomorrow
Sorry. Doug Weller talk 20:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
March 2021
Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions to Al-Ahbash, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of the page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 01:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Invitation to WikiProject Reliability
Self-published books
Here you are right about WP:ELNO but you are not correct about listing of self-published books. They can be absolutely written as long as the person's relevance as a writer has been established.
See David_Duke#Self-published_books for a name. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Georgethedragonslayer: It's not that the books were self-published that particularly concerned me (perhaps I shouldn't have included that at all in the edit summary), but that the material is entirely unsourced and it does not seem to have been noted by any reliable sources. If no reliable sources have noted those books in connection with Ali Sina, I'm not sure why his Wikipedia article should. Any unsourced material may be removed per WP:BLPSOURCES. Also, the WorldCat link in the authority control box at the end of article already contains at least some of the books. Snuish (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- We are not exactly obliged to find coverage of the publication before listing it on the writer's page. What I can confirm is that these were his publications and as such there will be no issue with including them. If you still have issues with my edits then we can take it to WP:BLPN. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
WikiIslam
Please stop adding inaccurate information from outdated sources on WikiIslam. The sources you're referring to do not reflect the current state of the site. The testimonies for instance no longer exist on the site.--Underthemayofan (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Keep off my talk page!
I am formally citing WP:GOAWAY and asking you to keep off of my talk page. I'll be seeking administrator assistance if you post on my talk page again.--Underthemayofan (talk) 06:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Underthemayofan: Got it. You're still welcome on my talk page for now. Snuish (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Underthemayofan: You need to remove "tlx|" from the beginning of the unblock template if you want it to display properly. Snuish (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Human Rights Service
I'm not sure that this will interest you, but -- does this look like a good description of a right-wing Islamophobic group? Doug Weller talk 13:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Doug, this certainly seems interesting. Thanks! I'm not particularly familiar with the political dynamics in Norway but certainly will take a closer look at this group over the next few weeks. Snuish (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Have you heard of the Swedish Julia Caesar?
- https://www.rights.no/author/juliac/
- And this is fascinating: https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/NOR/INT_CERD_NGO_NOR_21041_E.pdf
- And this academic study https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333091847_The_rhetoric_of_Islamophobia_an_analysis_of_the_means_of_persuasion_in_Hege_Storhaug's_writings_on_Islam_and_Muslims Doug Weller talk 15:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Very interesting. Thanks again! I note the second link, i.e., the PDF, states that the HRS "has received state support for spreading anti-‐immigrant propaganda in general and anti-‐Muslim prejudice in particular." I will assess these sources and others that I find, if any, to expand the article. Snuish (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- There's a long response on the talk page now that I haven't replied to. Doug Weller talk 09:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Very interesting. Thanks again! I note the second link, i.e., the PDF, states that the HRS "has received state support for spreading anti-‐immigrant propaganda in general and anti-‐Muslim prejudice in particular." I will assess these sources and others that I find, if any, to expand the article. Snuish (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Wow
For pulling off what seems magic to my eyes. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- TB, thanks! However, just to be clear, I didn't have anything to do with this user's block. He was able to accomplish that all on his own without my help. But I'm offering the COI evidence in case there is a request for an unblock. Snuish (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oh - okay. Now might be a good time to email paid-en-wp
wikipedia.org. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: I know that you wouldn't decide the unblock request yourself. I'm curious, however, whether you think I should pre-emptively submit the evidence since the memos take quite some effort and time to write; I'm sure it also takes quite a bit of time for administrators to review the same. I could also wait for the administrator reviewing the unblock request to express an interest in the information. Snuish (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Snuish2 I’d pre-emptively email. Doug Weller talk 18:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I will be submitting it within the next 48–72 hours. Snuish (talk) 01:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I wonder what happened to this. Btw, NO's ubl is pending. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- I will be submitting it within the next 48–72 hours. Snuish (talk) 01:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Snuish2 I’d pre-emptively email. Doug Weller talk 18:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: I know that you wouldn't decide the unblock request yourself. I'm curious, however, whether you think I should pre-emptively submit the evidence since the memos take quite some effort and time to write; I'm sure it also takes quite a bit of time for administrators to review the same. I could also wait for the administrator reviewing the unblock request to express an interest in the information. Snuish (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oh - okay. Now might be a good time to email paid-en-wp
You've got mail

It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 12:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Nouman Ali Khan
I appreciate the edit you made to the Ali Sina article with respect to use of a primary source. The edits were fair and balanced.
I noticed NAK's personal section could also use a revision due to its over-reliance on primary sources (interviews). Could you take a similar stab at it? Especially the fact about 10000 students. Thanks! Rackaballa (talk) 09:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for working with me constructively on the Ali Sina article. Regarding Nouman Ali Khan, the statement about 10,000 students is readily believable, given that Khan's career spans several decades now. However, it's sourced to a publication that is not a reliable source, i.e., the 500 Muslims page. I wouldn't be opposed to its removal. Snuish (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Wikiislam lede revision
Hey there, I revised the lede to make sure it remains faithful to recent scholarship. Explanation here: Talk:WikiIslam#Changes to the lede: Explanation. Rackaballa (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |
Request for clarification and constructive collaboration regarding recent editsHello Snuish2, Thank you for taking the time to review the edits to the Ali Sina article. In the interest of remaining fully aligned with Wikipedia policy and maintaining a collaborative atmosphere, I would appreciate clarification on a few points: 1. WP:BRD – Bold, Revert, Discuss Several substantial removals were made without prior discussion. As deletions involved multiple sourced passages, may I kindly ask that we follow the BRD process and seek consensus before removing large blocks of content? 2. WP:BURDEN – Responsibility for Removing Sourced Material Wikipedia states that the burden of demonstrating why sourced material should be removed lies with the editor who removes it. Would you be willing to indicate which specific references were considered insufficient or noncompliant? I’m happy to improve any sourcing where possible. 3. WP:NPOV – Neutral Point of View The article currently retains unsourced critical statements attributed to detractors, while reliably sourced quotations from Sina’s published works have been removed. This may unintentionally create a one-sided narrative. To maintain neutrality, may we review both inclusions and deletions to ensure all views are treated according to WP:NPOV? 4. WP:SELFPUB – Use of Primary Sources You cited WP:SELFPUB to justify removing quotations from Sina’s books. However, the quoted material was not used to establish notability or make claims about himself, but rather to accurately represent his publicly stated views—the very views for which he is known. Could you please clarify how quoting those views (from published books) would violate WP:SELFPUB? If additional secondary sources are required, I will gladly add them. 5. Prior Concerns About Large-Scale Content Removal On your talk page, another editor previously raised concern over regular large removals in religion and politics-related articles, suggesting that some edits may bypass expected discussion norms. I do not wish to assume intent—only to ensure we follow collaborative standards. Therefore, may I request that before further large-scale edits are made, we open a discussion first, per WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS? 6. You also removed the list of his publications and books. Will you kindly explain the rationale? 7. Willingness to Collaborate I am ready to work with you constructively to ensure the article is: neutrally written, properly sourced, and fully compliant with Wikipedia policies. If you prefer, I can propose edits on the Talk page first, and we can review them together before insertion. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your cooperation on how best to proceed. OceanSplash (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2025 ( November 2025 (UTC)
Request for Discussion Instead of ReversalsDear Snuish, you reverted Ali Sina’s page, on which I had made substantial contributions. Following the WP:BRD guideline, I opened a discussion. But instead, you reverted that too. Based on my understanding of the WP policies, like, WP:DISCUSSION, reverting talk comments is unacceptable — discussion must be preserved. As per WP:TALKPAGE, Talk pages exist to build consensus — comments cannot be removed unless abusive. WP:OWN specifically states that no editor owns a page. Your reversions suggest otherwise. Instead of restoring my talk page, I respectfully invite you to cooperate and instead of reverting the page, engage in constructive dialogue. I am fully willing to discuss wording and improve neutrality. I believe my edits offer a notable clarification — the distinction between criticism of Islam as an ideology and respect for individuals who are Muslim. This distinction has been recognized in academic publications and interviews, and I am prepared to provide citations. To invite broader input and avoid a two-editor dispute, I am opening this to community review. I appreciate your concerns, and I am committed to working strictly within Wikipedia policies. My intention is to ensure accuracy, balance, and compliance with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. There are several important points I would kindly like to address: 1. Use of Self-Published Material – WP:BLPSELFPUB You mentioned that quoting Sina’s books violates WP:BLPSELFPUB. However, that policy explicitly permits the use of a subject’s own writings when used to represent their views, provided that: They do not concern third parties They are not used to establish notability They are limited and relevant to the topic Sina’s books were not used to claim third-party facts — only to accurately represent his publicly stated views about Islam vs. Muslims. This distinction is central to his work and necessary for clarity and neutrality. Since critics have claimed that Sina is “anti-Muslim,” it is appropriate — and required per WP:BLP — to include his own clarification, in his own words, regarding his opposition to an ideology (Islam) rather than to individuals (Muslims). Suppressing this clarification may unintentionally violate WP:BLP by suggesting a view that is contradicted by the subject's own writing. 2. Neutrality – WP:NPOV & WP:BLP Currently, the article includes the claims of his detractors while excluding his documented responses. This may unintentionally create a one-sided portrayal. Per WP:BLP — “Biographies must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject’s perspective if it is relevant and reliably sourced.” Therefore, a brief and attributed sentence such as the following maintains neutrality and policy compliance: “Sina has stated that his criticism is directed at Islam as an ideology, and not at Muslims as individuals, emphasizing that he was once a Muslim himself.” This is: ✔ Verifiably sourced ✔ Direct attribution ✔ Not self-serving ✔ Required for accurate representation 3. Removal of Works Section I would also like clarification on the removal of the list of published books. A bibliography section is standard for living authors and is permitted even without secondary sources, as it does not make claims but simply lists verifiable publications, similar to hundreds of other Wikipedia author pages. I propose reintroducing the following minimal version: Works Understanding Muhammad: A Psychological Analysis of Islam’s Founder ISBN: 978-1926800196 The Demographic Timebomb: Immigration, Islam, and the West ISBN: 978-1926800257 From Demographic Winter To Civilizational Ice Age: A Manifesto for Civilizational Renewal ISBN: 978-1926800233 Holy War Unholy Peace: The Illusion of the Two-State Solution ISBN: 978-1926800141 Islamophobia: A Rational Fear ISBN: 978-1926800226 The Life of Muhammad Under the Light of Reason: A Critical Examination of Islam's Founding Figure ISBN: 978-1926800264 This section is not argumentative and complies with WP:V. 4. Secondary Sources & the SPLC Mention The SPLC label has been included, but important contextual information has been omitted. Numerous scholars and journalists — including in Politico, The Atlantic, and The New York Times — have criticized the SPLC for labeling conservative or dissenting views as hate-based. Per WP:BLP & WP:UNDUE, controversial labels about a living person should be presented with due context, not as uncontested facts. We should either: include proper balance, or mark the SPLC claim with [citation needed] until context is added. 5. Good-Faith Request to Collaborate I am willing to shorten the material, reduce quotations, and ensure neutral tone. My only request is that: The subject’s own basic views are represented accurately, and Published works are listed as is standard for biography pages. I will gladly work with you to revise the page to ensure perfect policy compliance. Thank you for your time and willingness to collaborate. If these suggestions are not acceptable, do you agree that we request for comments from other editors? Best regards, James (talk) 019:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC) OceanSplash — Preceding unsigned comment added by OceanSplash (talk • contribs) | |