User talk:Grufo

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or sock puppetry.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!Template:Z129

Reminder on sources

Hello Grufo, thanks for your ongoing contributions. As a reminder, any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source, per WP:V. Regards, Rolf H Nelson (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rolf h nelson: Hi! I agree completely. What exactly are you referring to? --Grufo (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

[1]. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rolf h nelson: Oh, yes, I apologize. What happened in that article was that I restored a useful content and then I slowly started to add references to it. But searching for references takes its time. --Grufo (talk) 03:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Negative mass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newton's law (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You seem to be reverting whole-scale edits, including mine. Given that you're introducing extremist Islamophobic sources (see WP:QUESTIONABLE), I get the feeling you may not even be fully reading what you're reverting, or that you don't understand WP:RS. Please stop reverting.VR _talk 20:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. VR _talk 14:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

Your addition to Islamic views on slavery has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Diannaa: I am sorry, what part would I have copied? --Grufo (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

All of it was copied. The text "The Prophet ordered slave-owners to address their slaves by such euphemistic terms as 'my boy' and 'my girl' and "The Prophet ordered slave-owners to address their slaves by such euphemistic terms as 'my boy' and 'my girl' stemmed from the belief that God, not their masters, was responsible for the slave's status" appear in the Medium article here, which appears to be quoting some other source, likely the same source you actually cited. The remainder is a match for this book, page 170.— Diannaa (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Because of your intervention I have no more access to the history of my edits for checking. I definitely used the BBC page as a source for a small paragraph (so definitely not “all of it”), but I referenced it, so I don't see the problem. Furthermore, besides that small paragraph I had given many more further contributions that surely have nothing to do with the alleged copyright infringement you talk about, but it seems you enjoyed removing them as well under the same umbrella motivation. But as I said I cannot access the history page and check for the extension of your intervention. --Grufo (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Your contribution to the page was removed pretty much in its entirety, because it all appears to have been copied from the two sources I already mentioned. The revisions containing the copyright material were hidden from view under under criterion RD1 of the revision deletion policy, and that's why you can't access them any more.— Diannaa (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Since I cannot check I will go by heart. All the interventions of mine that were taken from the BBC page had a footnote with the source and in most cases used double quotes. It is a typical case of fair use and perfectly normal within Wikipedia pages. --Grufo (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

None of that is true. I have temporarily undone the revision deletion so you can see for yourself.— Diannaa (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thank you. I see. I think there is a misunderstanding. To understand my interventions you will have to compare revisions 971482722 and 969279725, where you can see Vice regent's edits reviewed by me, plus some additions from me containing the BBC quotations. All the other books that according to you are plagiarized have not been added by me and were already present in the page. --Grufo (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Correction: I did remove a large quotation from the BBC article, it was done as a separate edit with the edit summary "remove quotation; no reason why original prose could not be prepared". Since after I did that I found additional copyright material that had to be removed, the removal of the quotation was caught up in the revision deletion. It would be best if it was done right at the end so it's not a hidden diff, but that's not what happened in this case unfortunately.

What I would like you to do is have a look at this sequence of edits, which shows the difference before you began your additions to the article and after my removal. None of the text I removed was already present (other than one iteration of the phrase "The Prophet ordered slave-owners to address their slaves by such euphemistic terms as 'my boy' and 'my girl'"). Meanwhile your comparison shows a large amount of text added by someone else, text which I did not remove and is still present in the article.— Diannaa (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Diannaa: My intervention was literally a review of Vice regent's edits, so if you compare my edits after Vice regent's edits (as the Diff page you linked shows) you will probably see some text added that apparently is from me. But if you go back before Vice regent you will see that that text eventually comes back. This is because my edits were a revision of Vice regent's interventions, and in the specific case I did not approve one or more removals by Vice regent. It is important to emphasize that the dispute between me and Vice regent (#1) has nothing to do with copyright, but only with content, so I believe neither of us checked whether previous material present in the page was protected by copyright. --Grufo (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying that there was a copyright violation before I started editing, then I removed that copyright violation and you brought back that copyright violation? VR _talk 15:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I am saying exactly that (if it is true that a copyright violation was present in the page and of which you were in any case completely unaware). --Grufo (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

And you see nothing wrong with that? Restoring copyright violation is as bad as introducing it in the first place.VR _talk 15:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Since I've been mentioned in this discussion twice... Grufo is following me around wikipedia, undoing my edits and adding original research (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Hounding). This revision (now deleted) by Grufo both added original research and violated copyright from this BBC article. My revisions, which are not deleted and can still be seen, did not introduce any copyright material.VR _talk 14:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

This shows once again that you live in parallel discussions, Vice regent. As it is emerging from this discussion, my quotation from BBC was not what triggered the copyright violation discussed here. --Grufo (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Diannaa confirmed that your quotation from BBC was removed with the edit summary "remove quotation; no reason why original prose could not be prepared".VR _talk 15:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: I understand your desperate search of approval from others, but I would leave it to Diannaa to say whether my BBC quotation constituted a copyright violation or not. --Grufo (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The edit that triggered the investigation was your very first edit to the page, at 02:40, August 5, 2020, which contained copyright material copied from the BBC article, not a quotation. The large quote ("a poignant paradox of Islamic slavery...") from the BBC article was added with your 05:10, August 5, 2020 edit. Grufo, please stop pinging me in each edit. I have watch-listed the page, and will visit when I can, and will make a comment if I have something to say. Please don't make disparaging remarks about other editors ("desperate search of approval").— Diannaa (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

“your very first edit to the page, at 02:40, August 5, 2020, which contained copyright material copied from the BBC article“

Again, we cannot reference the history since it has been obscured, but I know for sure that I had done my best to reformulate the prose in the parts that have not been surrounded by double quotes and I am sure that the prose was referenced with a footnote.

“Grufo, please stop pinging me in each edit. I have watch-listed the page”

I usually believe that adding a ping to the user every time the user is mentioned is an act of courtesy, since I cannot know whether the user has watch-listed the page – for example I never watch-list any page. I apologize in any case if that has bothered you.

“disparaging remarks about other editors”

As for that, I repeat what I just said: it must be you the one who talks about copyright, not a user who was completely unaware of it, who until not long ago was attacking me for not being literal enough in copying from the BBC, and at the moment cannot even access the history and judge what we are talking about.

So the question is: was my paragraph, by the time I had finished editing the page, legitimate or not from a copyright point of view? If not, what exactly constituted copyright violation? --Grufo (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The entire series of edits had to be removed because it was all copied from elsewhere - the BBC article, the book, and the Medium article. The exception was the paragraph-long quotation and some snippets in the first edit, both from the BBC article, which I removed as excess non-free content. I have again undone the revision deletion because you apparently did not get an adequate opportunity to review. Here is how the first edit compares with the BBC article. Some of it is in quotation marks, but some of it is not. Again, there's no reason for the quotations - the material could have been re-written in your own words.

Once I removed the over-long quotation I looked at the remainder of your addition this way, and plugged snippets of the remaining additions into a Google search, which revealed the material from Medium and from the book. Sample Google search; highlighted copied material as seen in the book. I have to go out again in ten minutes as I have another appointment. — Diannaa (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I had asked about the paragraph that used the BBC as a source (I don't remember the title and I am not allowed to look), since the rest is not material that I have inserted (why do you repeat it? I have never seen that book before and it is not hard to see what was already present in the page before the dispute between me and Vice regent). I would like that you pasted that BBC-based paragraph here, possibly including footnotes, since it is hard to make an argument without it. --Grufo (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The paragraph is visible now, thank you. There is only one sentence without double quotes that I have tried to reformulate with my own words (still making sure that a footnote referencing to the original article was present in the end).

The original BBC sentence is:

“Islamic law allows slaves to get their freedom under certain circumstances. It divides slaves with the right to freedom into various classes:”

While my version is:

“While in other systems of slavery, such as for example that of Ancient Rome, a slave could always buy their freedom by financial means, Islamic law allows slaves to get their freedom only under certain circumstances. Slaves are divided with the right to freedom into various classes:”

So this was the paragraph that allegedly violates copyright, while this is the BBC page the paragraph is based on.

(paragraph that possibly violates copyright)

Slave rights to freedom While in other systems of slavery, such as for example that of Ancient Rome, a slave could always buy their freedom by financial means, Islamic law allows slaves to get their freedom only under certain circumstances. Slaves are divided with the right to freedom into various classes: The mukatab is "a slave who has the contractual right to buy their freedom over time" The mudabbar is "a slave who will be freed when their owner dies (this might not happen if the owner's estate was too small)" The umm walid is "a female slave who had borne her owner a child" References

I would say that although contentwise the paragraph can definitely be improved and I am sure it is not the best Wikipedia edit I ever did, it is a fair use of copyrighted material. --Grufo (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a very strict copyright policy, stricter in some ways than copyright law itself, because our fair use policy does not allow us to copy material from copyright sources when there's a freely licensed alternative available. In this case the freely licensed material is prose that we write ourselves.— Diannaa (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

There are five sentence in total in that paragraph. Two I have reformulated with my own words, three instead are left as literal quotations. And given the sensitivity of the topic, even if I could reformulate these three sentences with my own words, I would never take the responsibility of re-defining myself what mukatab, mudabbar and umm walid are. --Grufo (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources that define those three terms, and I can think of plenty of ways of using original prose to convey the same content.VR _talk 22:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Your addition should not contain any number of sentences that are copied from elsewhere, other than short quotations, and those are only permitted when there is no alternative. You had better leave out the part about the Roman Empire; it's not covered by the cited source, and I'm pretty sure it's not true that they were always allowed to buy their freedom. How about this:

Islamic law has mandates several circumstances under which a slave is allowed to buy their freedom. A mukatab is under contract to his owner, and is permitted to buy his freedom for a certain sum of money within a certain time frame. A mudabbar is a slave who has been promised his freedom when his owner dies. And an umm walid is a female slave who is freed upon giving birth to her owner's child.

I've pasted this version in User:Diannaa/sandbox2 and you can see via Earwig's tool that the overlap is very small. View the overlap— Diannaa (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Diannaa. As I said, it is not that I could not find the words to reformulate these sentences, it is that I did not feel like taking the responsibility of doing it. I agree about better not mentioning Ancient Rome, it was a way to formulate the sentence in a more original way and mark a bigger distance from the original source. I think we can close this topic now. If you are OK with it in the next days I will use your version for the Wikipedia article. --Grufo (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

VR, you make a good point about research. The article Mukataba says there are 4 ways a slave can be manumuted, not three. So there's more research to be done.— Diannaa (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

It turns out there are many ways of manumission and I re-organized this here. Before my edit, I found a lot of quotation and close paraphrasing.VR _talk 00:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

BLP

Grufo, you need to realize that BLPs are governed by strict rules. Any poorly sourced content at BLPs must be removed immediately. WP:BLPCAT says

Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources.

VR _talk 17:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Darwish

Moved to Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini § Darwish

 – Grufo (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Civility matters

Your recent edits to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard [2]&[3] shows you have strong feelings regarding the subject of the discussion and that you need to avoid further violation of Civility. I suggest you avoid making comments that are not related to making content changes. Best. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: What made you perceive that good comments such as [4] and [5] have anything against Civility? --Grufo (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Civility requires focusing on "focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." Further it says describes incivility as "personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments". Your comments "Being ideologically opposed to Khomeini is quite a symptom of good mental health" and "...sounds like “Wikipedia:Other stuff exists applied to a dictator” " is never an improvement to the discussion and instead violates civility. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Hossein: I am fairly convinced that both comments have been good manifestations of Civility, both 1) defending two atheist bloggers who due to their opposition to the dictator Khomeini had been accused of being biased, using for it the argument that "being ideologically opposed to Khomeini is quite a symptom of good mental health", and 2) stating that the sentence according to which Khomeini was just like other clerics of his time "...sounds like “Wikipedia:Other stuff exists applied to a dictator”". On the contrary your allegations seem to go straight against it. --Grufo (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I already explained how your comments are never improvement to the article and/or the talk page discussions. So you need to avoid them. Repeating incivility is sanctionable, AFAIK. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

"Defending two atheist bloggers" is not what you should do here, as an editor. You need to pay attention to the our policies and guidelines (see your welcome message). --Mhhossein ^talk 12:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: As editors we defend what we believe in good faith should be defended. And suggesting that the opposition to a bloody dictator is a sign of good mental health is exactly what I think civility is. --Grufo (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Oshwah: Would you please help with this discussion/instruction as an admin? The user is not willing to accept the users are not here to defend/oppose a POV/person or lack thereof. I tried to tell him the talk page discussions should include comments aimed at improving the article and/or the talk page discussions. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. VR _talk 13:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

Your recent editing history at Rape in Islamic law shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring at Rape in Islamic law

Hello Grufo. You've been warned for edit warring as a result of a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. You may be blocked if you continue to remove the original research template when protection expires, unless you have received a prior consensus in your favor on the article talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Your talk page edit makes it difficult for us to have a discussion

This edit of yours on a talk page is unhelpful. I started a discussion on the talk page about your revert at 18:05 August 12 and then you started a discussion on the exact same revert at 18:20, August 12, 2020. I assumed that you hadn't see my discussion before adding a new section, so I simply merged the two sections. This is something simple and procedural that's done on talk pages. Yet for some reason you separated the sections which discuss the exact same topic. You even added comments in both sections. Why would you insist on having the same conversation in two different sections? VR _talk 21:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I saw the history only later and I thought you had changed the title of my paragraph. I have seen now that you had inserted a paragraph few minutes before I inserted mine. It does not really matter that in good faith we created two similar paragraph in a talk page. But I believe that at this point merging them would create confusion. --Grufo (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)