User talk:Hu741f4

You have good friends up ur sleeve my brother, probs Hussein. Don't forget we have consensus in the parliament lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:6E00:B71:3000:81A1:CE20:EE4E:20C2 (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean?

Hu741f4 (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hu741f4! 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

Happy editing! I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 19:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Hu741f4 (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia policity WP:BRD you should open a talk page thread on that page and garner a consensus as dictated. A new consensus takes time, usually several weeks. It is not a matter of simply posting your rationale and restoring that image. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Akshaypatill (talk) 08:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your last edit. The discussion is on the talk page. Please check the discussion. Talk:Muhammad_of_Ghor Akshaypatill (talk) 08:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Hu741f4 (talk) 08:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:WikiProject is a group of editors who like to work together on articles. You're welcome to join us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. It's a good place to ask questions or to help each other out. If you'd like to, you're also welcome to join the informal, low-key contest about adding citations to articles: https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Wikipedia/WikiProject_Medicine_reference_campaign_2023?enroll=qyoufwds (All you have to do is sign up at that link, and then edit normally. Everything else is automated.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add your own point of view to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Mercury(II) chloride. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.

I had already pointed out to you the second part of this in our earlier interaction here: there is only one Latin work attributed to al-Razi scholars regard as partially authentic, which is the Liber secretorum Bubacaris. If you had read that or Moureau 2020 p. 117 you would not have done this.

Your continued editing with the clear tendency of attributing discoveries to Arabic-Islamic authors without reading up on the sources or by mispresenting them or by partially ignoring them (cf. what Needham actually says vs what you made of that here, also completely ignoring Needham's clear It is generally accepted that mineral acids were quite unknown both to the ancients in the West and to the Arabic alchemists) is getting to be disruptive.

Please find another topic area which you have less strong personal views about and more appetite to read in full multiple recent sources. That would help us all at this point. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia policy regarding Original research WP:OR. The source cited doesn't mention that it is Falsely attributed to al-Razi. Other editors also disagree with you. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1139913867 Hu741f4 (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a long quote from the source on talk showing that scholars view it as pseudepigraphical. The other editor can be excused for having been ignorant of this when they reverted, but you should have already known about what I quoted before you reverted, because I had already pointed it out to you. You clearly have no interest in reading sources in full and in representing what they are saying in a neutral way. This is, by itself, disruptive –even if you don't mean it that way. Please reconsider. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both are falsely attributed but you are specifically using falsely only for al-Razi and not for Hermes implying that it was indeed a work of HermesHu741f4 (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Attributions to legendary figures like Hermes Trismegistus (see also: Hermetica) are self-evidently false, which is why scholars do not dwell upon this.

The attribution of the De aluminibus et salibus to al-Razi, on the other hand, could be of crucial historical importance if authentic, and that is why scholars do write about this at some length (see, e.g., Ferrarrio 2009 pp. 42–43, and the older sources he cites which also discuss this question). In an actual article about the book, we would have an entire section devoted to the traditional attribution to al-Razi, while the attribution to Hermes would only be mentioned in the passing.

Because scholars pay more attention to the attribution to al-Razi and because recent experts explicitly argue that it is untenable, this deserves to be mentioned whenever we mention both the De aluminibus et salibus and al-Razi.

But my point here on your user talk is that you could have known all this if you just had read the sources with a neutral and inquisitive mind. By forcing me to explain all of this to you, you are wasting an enormous amount of my time, as well as of other Wikipedia editors like the patroller who reverted my edit on Mercury(II) chloride and then had to restore it after discussion on talk [1][2].

This cannot continue like this, and I would like you to reflect upon that. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at List_of_Muslim_Nobel_laureates 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; read about 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. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 18:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am cooperating The ip user has violated the the warning by reverting the edit recently after you warned the user. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1178763465

Please revert his edit and ask him discuss it on talk page first Hu741f4 (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2023 (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) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]