User talk:StarkReport

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)

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)

I am sorry but I have reverted your 18:48-51 edits at Aisha. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as 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 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

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

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)

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)

Hmmm, I see. StarkReport (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Jinn (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• An input request has been relisted to have more inputs about DUE/UNDUE relevance and fringe-ness at Talk:Jinn#Comparative mythology, Due, Fringe or Undue?.

This input request / intimation is made to you, looking at your previous contribution to the article Islam (Xtool) or talk page there of. Bookku (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It is unnecessary to references other religious clothings in the first paragraph. Additionally, a logical error in a sentence used has been corrected. Think about the issue again.NGC 628 (talk) 08:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@NGC 628, Please do not remove well-sourced content. Including mentions to similar head coverings from other religions is crucial for contextualizing the hijab within a global tradition of religious clothing. Removing this WP:Due comparison diminishes the lead's ability to provide a well-rounded and informative perspective. StarkReport (talk) 09:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand that, but the first paragraph is not the place for it. Additionally, a sentence I corrected is not only logical but also contains a generalization error for those who know the subject. There is no consensus among Islamic scholars regarding the (religious) nature of the headscarf or Hijab.NGC 628 (talk) 09:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a generalization error. There is a general consensus among Muslim scholars globally on its requisite, with only a minority holding differing views. The content "either required or preferred" accurately reflects the flexibility within Islamic teachings, acknowledging that while it may not be strictly obligatory, it is widely valued and encouraged.(Mustahabb).

The main debate revolves around the specifics of the coverage, which we already have elaborated on in the following sections. StarkReport (talk) 09:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@NGC 628, Furthermore, your inserting of an image depicting the Taliban beating a woman in public, which @Shinakho reverted, raises serious questions about your intentions. StarkReport (talk) 09:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection to these views. Here, the subject must be explained in a format that everyone can understand in the same way. Statements in the introduction section about clothing styles in other religions can be moved to a more appropriate place.NGC 628 (talk) 09:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

"subject must be explained in a format that everyone can understand in the same way"

We have already covered this information in the "History" section. The lead is meant to concisely encapsulate the key points from the body of the article, and this objective has been met. StarkReport (talk) 09:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Funny enough, I'm actually working on Draft:Chinese philology! In theory, at least... Remsense ‥ 论 09:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. StarkReport (talk) 09:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Islamic terrorism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2015 Paris attacks. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm trying to add an article on Shuah Khan, Can you help? Thanks. AbdulRahim2002 (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Want help with grammar? I can definitely do that! But sourcing? That's tricky for me—I really don’t have any info on Shuah Khan. StarkReport (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Layered account—has been proposed for merging with Autoethnography. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 14:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Please see the above, as we use logical quotation on Wikipedia. Remsense ‥ 论 20:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Ahh! Thanks for the heads-up. StarkReport (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Assassination of Ali Khamenei, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kano was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Ali Khamenei, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)