CriticalRationalThinking

Welcome!

Hello, CriticalRationalThinking, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits has not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome.  JarrahTree 13:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Are not where verification of your assertions can be made valid, only WP:RS and WP:CITE to back up some of your eits, otherwise they will be reverted as WP:OR - specially on controversial topics where there might have already been issues arise. Please be very careful with your assertions by providing adequate sources/citations, thank you JarrahTree 13:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Whoch ones arent good?

Excuse me but that isnt very helpful to me... Can you please tell me which and why If you want to gather honey, don't kick over the beehive - Dale Carnegie 21:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

reply

Well one can see you have had your fun at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Religious_Bias

Response - please WP:SIGN

Please do not use others names to sign, you are either what your username say, to throw in quotes from others does not help, I think such a response does not help others to understand what you are up to.

I have stated that using your edit summary as a means of making an assertion is WP:OR Look at all your edits. where are the cites or the refs to assert your claims? JarrahTree 23:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, moving forward I understand that if it's unpopular, it needs citations. If it's popular, and furthers the work of Muhammad, then it's fine. If it makes Islam look bad, it needs 20 citations. If it makes Islam look good, it needs nothing. Right? Of course not. Could you help me understand this phenomenon? CriticalRationalThinking Ryan [If you want to gather honey, don't kick over the beehive. Dale Carnegie] (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

For a start shorten your signature, you stick out like a foghorn in silent rule monastery, you are a new user, better to take lower profile and try your problems with reality out on less controversial subject areas, if you cannot help yourself maybe wikipedia is not for you. If you really want to edit, take care and understand it is not what you say - anything here in the encyclopedia has nothing to do with popularity and weight of citations, it is an online encyclopedia. you are close to WP:SOAPBOX and WP:SPA if you insist on your version of historical interpretation of islam. You are really heading towards being chastised further if you are keen on your mission. cheers. JarrahTree 00:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

For many who start of wikipedia with a mission, the initial easing into the logic and epistemology of what constitutes good online encyclopediac style can be quite a shift in ways of thinking, and even more harder are some of the markup and WP:MOS requirements, what may be seen to be to a first timer or outside is inherent bias towards a particular subject. That always happens. It is how you adjust, make the range of adjustments to seeing things, and whether you can deal with the way the place works. Many cannot take the requirements, and find something else. If can make the shift, welcome, otherwise maybe you should cojnsider being an apiarist. JarrahTree 00:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Jarrah, I can see that criticizing your words on a help page has really upset you. Leading to this personal attack. First of all Jarrah, you do not command me what to do. Second of all I will not be taking a low profile. Third of all, it is clear that you believe I am committed to a certain historical narrative of Islam. Fourth, I don't doubt that I'm heading towards being chastised further. I have dealt with you and people like you my entire life. I have never lost. This is for one simple reason. The facts and evidence support what I am doing and saying, and the facts and evidence do not support what you are doing and saying in this instance. Is it your place to tell people what their 'mission' is? I don't subscribe to Islam, and so I'm not a servant of Allah. I speak Arabic and I am extremely well versed in Islam but particularly in the life of Muhammad. I run a local non-profit. If you want to waste your time battling me or trying to shut me down, then be my guest. I will write to the right people and tell them exactly what you are doing, and your long and distinguished record of helping Wikipedia will be for naught. Or we can have a conversation! I do not have a certain agenda of Islam as you say, and I actually I love Islam because of Social Justice. If you want to have a conversation then please email me Ryanatcentral@gmail.com. Thanks! CriticalRationalThinking Ryan [If you want to gather honey, don't kick over the beehive. Dale Carnegie] (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey boy watch your mouth, you need to show some respect to veteran Wikipedia users like @JarrahTree:, nobody questioned your ability to speak languages or which god you served. How does running local non-profit say that you are a trusted Wikipedia user??? Nobody will question JarrahTree's Wikipedia contribution because a new user got angry and showed some attitude. Come on Now. Also what is up with the beehive non-sense you put in your signature? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Your being able to pick up possible irony or humour seems to be lacking . I have not the slightest conern for what you might say, there are many other editors here who will deal with your edits, I have simply offered advice. Your response shows you dont want advice. Thats ok, and you should never offer personal emails online, it is unwise. Fine enjoy, bye. JarrahTree 00:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

btw - I will write to the right people and tell them exactly what you are doing, and your long and distinguished record of helping Wikipedia will be for naught is a threat and can see you blocked, literally instantly. I'll let it pass if you retract it now. JarrahTree 00:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Jarrah, it is not a threat to say that I will report you for this unethical behavior, and that you will be removed from any power you may have. If you want to keep fighting and fighting be my guest, otherwise I've invited you to contact me to resolve this which I think we can do! Its all up to what you want you know?

You need to learn how to sign your post, and what un-ethical behavior are you going to report??? You are the one who is keep fighting. This is the place to talk, hence a talk page. You are in no position of power to dictate terms and what @JarrahTree: would do. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Alexis, you are right there is a lot for me to learn and I want to learn it from you. Please contact me at my email. Ryanatcentral@gmail.com

We talk in the talk page, not through email, this is why talk pages exist in wikipedia Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Well personally I've always thought that it's more important that the communication be clear, than it be done the same way its always been done, but that's just me. I was under the impression that when conversations are held in public, it is nearly impossible to come to resolutions, and for this reason Diplomats hold meetings in secret. Because each party must be concerned about their reputation in public, but in private, they may speak frankly. CriticalRationalThinking Ryan [Want honey? Don't kick over the beehive]-Carnegie] (talk)

Jarrah, I'd like to solve this peacefully with you, and to also hear what it is you want to say. I've tried to do this by giving you my contact info so that a resolution could happen easier. So now I am offering for the second time in good faith, let's resolve this. I would like the User Space Harassment, and Wikihounding to stop. I have made factual academic mainstream assertions about the Historical Life of Muhammad which seem to have upset you? That said some of your statements were hurtful, and in violation of Wikipedia Harassment and I'd like for this to serve as a warning, but much more importantly an opportunity to resolve our dispute together! Jarrah: "you are close to WP:SOAPBOX and WP:SPA if you insist on your version of historical interpretation of islam. You are really heading towards being chastised further if you are keen on your mission. cheers. JarrahTree 00:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC):" - Telling others that if they do not adopt your historical perception and 'if you insist on your version of historical interpretation of Islam. You are really heading towards being chastised further if you are keen on your mission.' is not an appropriate thing to say, because it creates an environment in which editors feel unsafe to document historical facts even with evidence, and it also means that others will apply different standards for reverting based on the preferable viewpoint expressed in that particular wiki. You have sent me some great Wikipedia pages to review, and I've enjoyed doing that, so thanks. Here is a review of how Wikipedia defines Harassment. "Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing." I want to resolve this, and I think it is very possible to resolve! Another statement of yours below.

"[It is] whether you can deal with the way the place works. [sic] If can make the shift, welcome, otherwise maybe you should cojnsider being an apiarist. JarrahTree 00:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)"

Almost all experts agree that negotiations done in public are almost always a failure because both sides are careful of how they are being perceived by the audience. I am open to resolving our dispute in any way, but I would prefer that you would email me. Thanks CriticalRationalThinking Ryan [Want honey? Don't kick over the beehive]-Carnegie] (talk)

The way you act in public and private should be the same and Wikipedia editors hold that standard. Use your talk page more than your email. There is no negotiations under the table Alexis Ivanov (talk) 07:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

CriticalRationalThinking, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi CriticalRationalThinking! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Doctree (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, CriticalRationalThinking. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

The Wikipedia way

Hello,

I am a Jew not a Muslim and I have no vested interest in advancing the Muslim world view. I do have a vested interest as a Wikipedia editor in the neutral point of view and in Verifiability and of the critical importance of citing reliable sources whenever making any assertion that might be challenged by any editor acting in good faith. These are core content principles, and because this is a project based on consensus, they are also core principles for interactions among editors. This is a project based on transparency, and the social norm here is that the vast majority of interactions between editors will take place openly here on Wikipedia. Sometimes, matters involving harassment or legal matters must take place in private but the general expecatation is that communication will be open, public and usually on-Wikipedia.

If you truly hope to be a successful Wikipedia editor, I encourage you to remove the chip from your shoulder, drop the "know it all" attitude, and realize that we are here only to summarize what reliable sources say about a given topic and not to insert our own brilliant insights into the encyclopedia in any way. If you do not like these standards, then fine. Depart our little project and go start a blog. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey Cullen, thank you for your message. I could be wrong, but I thought I saw that Wikipedia actually doesn't have a policy on communications, it has guidelines. I clearly explained why I disagreed with the guidelines in this situation, and I am sure that I'm right, although, I would always want evidence to the contrary. The truth is that when a community sees a new member who is confident, and unwilling to join in the institutionalized culture, it is perceived as a 'chip on my shoulder'. And a 'know it all attitude'. And yet, I value open mindedness and demonstrated that at every possible opportunity by asking for information to the contrary. Could you point to any examples of a 'know it all attitude'? Is it healthy or right to assume what my attitude is? The truth is that I have come here, and what I am seeing is absolutely scary. The assertions on the articles read almost like Muslim theology. I will change that, and I will do it the right way, and I will not submit to a higher standard than anyone else. As a Jew, you can rest assured knowing that before a day ago, people who searched Islamist on Wikipedia could read the entire thing and would walk away uninformed of what an Islamist is. An Islamist is someone who is wants to impose Shari'a law upon his society. Whether or not it says it there. Whether or not the Shari'a is consistently misrepresented in Muslim Wikipedia articles. I am quite confident that having explained my position here and my welcoming of any and all feedback on any and all issues, that you will take the time to give me even more feedback. Thanks CriticalRationalThinking Ryan [Want honey? Don't kick over the beehive]-Carnegie] (talk) 09:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC) (talk) 08:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Please remember to sign your posts by using the four tildes (~~~~). I'm not sure why your signature above appears as an IP address, but it clearly wasn't generated automatically because the time stamp doesn't match the edit (and you were signed in, so your username, not your IP, should be used). If you want to reply to a user such as Cullen328 on a page which they might not monitor closely, it is best to ping them so that they get notification of your reply. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

CRT> "...I thought I saw that Wikipedia actually doesn't have a policy on communications, it has guidelines."
According to WP:Five pillars, one of the "fundamental principles of Wikipedia" is "Editors should treat each other with respect and civility: ... Should conflicts arise, discuss them calmly on the appropriate talk pages..." Mitch Ames (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)