User talk:Snuish2

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:

Learn more about editing

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:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! JavaHurricane 05:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind welcome! Snuish2 (talk) 05:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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 [1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The unsourced statement on WikiIslam is a summary of the reception section on the article. I don't think it requires a citation, given that the reception section has details available. Snuish2 (talk) 02:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Happy New Year to you as well! Snuish2 (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Doug Weller talk 20:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks! I may open up a talk page discussion about this issue since there's likely one more interested editor. Snuish2 (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@McKhan: Unless you are posting a notice required under Wikipedia policies, do not edit my talk page again. Snuish2 (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Snuish2! Thanks for ensuring that articles are supported by reliable sources. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Reliability, a collaborative effort to improve the reliability of Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, please visit WikiProject Reliability for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Participants". Thanks! — Newslinger talk 00:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this excellent suggestion. I've joined the WikiProject. Snuish (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Georgethedragonslayer: Are you saying that this type of content is exempt from WP:V and/or WP:BLP? I'd be very interested in finding out if that's the case. Sure, let's open a discussion on WP:BLPN. Would you like to do the honors? Snuish (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Then you'll need to cite reliable sources in support of your changes, as opposed to citing what has been widely described as a hate site itself. Snuish (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Underthemayofan: Got it. You're still welcome on my talk page for now. Snuish (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

For pulling off what seems magic to my eyes. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oh - okay. Now might be a good time to email paid-en-wpwikipedia.org. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@Snuish2 I’d pre-emptively email. Doug Weller talk 18:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will be submitting it within the next 48–72 hours. Snuish (talk) 01:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what happened to this. Btw, NO's ubl is pending. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Snuish2. Please check your email; 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 12:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[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 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)[reply]