User talk:Cs01kh

August 2025

Hello, I'm ChildrenWillListen. An edit that you recently made to Islamic views on Jesus's death seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. Your edit may have been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 04:59, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hello, yes an AI system was used to fix the current text that uses alot of links both in the text & near the words that makes the page very difficult to read & edit.

It was already vandalised by a person to make the editing page not legible so that the page couldn't be corrected.

I am trying to make the editing page legible for other people to edit Cs01kh (talk) 05:36, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm VolatileAnomaly. I noticed that in this edit to Islamic views on Jesus's death, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 05:03, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I removed text on the this page about jesus death, because it explicitly contradicts the islamic belief that he died.

The Quran, in Surah An-Nisa (4:157-158), explicitly states: "...they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not: Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted".

As a muslim must belive & obey the koran, the statement I removed, explicitly contradicts the quoted text from the koran which states to muslims that Jesus was not crucified. Cs01kh (talk) 05:42, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cs01kh: Did you previously edit under User:ابو ير? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 05:43, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No Cs01kh (talk) 05:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Islamic views on Jesus's death, you may be blocked from editing. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 05:05, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

as you hopefully now see with other talks, my edits have now been accepted in their new form. Cs01kh (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Islamic views on Jesus's death, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Remember: Wikipedia is not censored. GenoV84 (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it was not to censor anything, but rather to clarify on the page that AlHamduLillah group is a minority sect Cs01kh (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

Sorry that we keep reverting your edits, we're just a little confused why you appear to be removing relevant content. I encourage you to come to the article talkpage and discuss why the content should be removed, especially if there is an issue with the sources. Best — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 05:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this page to any person that wants to edit it in the future has already been vandalised by placing alot of links everywhere (go have a look at the original editing pages, it does not look like a normal editing page, because it has too many links & would "scare" away any person who truly wants to edit it correctly.

I am simplifying the editing page & removing all text that claims jesus went to india (as this was a deliberate vandalism) as this deliberately contradicts the Koran that tells Muslims that jesus was not crucified but rather raised back to god. Cs01kh (talk) 05:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As VolatileAnomaly said, please discuss this at the talk page instead of removing or changing sourced content. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 05:51, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

how do I do that? Cs01kh (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go here. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 05:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you have given me a link, but I don't know where or how to start a discussion Cs01kh (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will start one and ping you, feel free to reply accordingly — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 05:59, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted your comment at NPOV noticeboard

The comment you made was not appropriate, because Wikipedia is not a place for religious discussion. One should not denigrate other people and religions and comment on Wikipedia content only. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 07:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it is not a religious discussion.

It is a direct statement of their beliefs "they belive jesus went to india but are not following the koran's direct wording at (4:158) that states: "Rather, Allah raised him up to Himself. And Allah is Almighty, All-Wise". Cs01kh (talk) 07:31, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Sorry for reverting it and I struck my original comment. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 07:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thankyou. I hope you now see that my changes for this page are all genuine and that I do not have any intention to vandalise the pages, and so you also accept & revert other rejections that you made to my changes. Cs01kh (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, only a cosmetic edit you made has been accepted, but all your more extensive edits have been rejected and reverted, and rightly so. That people have indicated that your edits aren't vandalism in the Wikipedia sense (i.e. deliberate attempts to make Wikipedia worse) doesn't mean that they are accepted: your edits don't follow WP:NPOV and try to impose one religious viewpoint as the only acceptable one. Wikipedia takes no position is such quarrels and doesn't indicate which interpretation of religious texts is more or less acceptable or whether only a literal reading is allowed. Wikipedia also doesn't decide or really care who are "real" muslims (or jews or christians or...) and who are "heretics". We do care about mainstream vs. small minority, and more attention or more prominent attention will be given to more mainstream or widely followed positions; but we won't indicate that either position is correct or better. Scientific explanations get weight above pseudoscientific ones, but no religious view is here more or less correct than another. Fram (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, please read our pages on reliable sources, and also our rules about edit warring. Fram (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What i am trying to do, is clarify that the Ahmadiyya group is a very small group within islam (less than 1%, see link

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya) Cs01kh (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So a link from another more reliable page will be accepted? Cs01kh (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Jehovah's Witnesses is a small denomination that diverges from mainstream Christian canon in several ways, but we still call them Christian, because the majority of reliable (scholarly) sources call them Christian. As Fram said, we generally don't define or care who the "real" Muslims are other than what the reliable sources have to say. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 17:15, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and it's the reliable sources (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/EPRS/EPRS-Briefing-568339-Understanding-branches-Islam-FINAL.pdf) that state they are a very small group, and wikipedia is ignoring the beliefs of the majority of Muslims and referring to the minority (less than 1%).

That would be like a page about christianity that doesn't mention catholics or protestants but speaks only about jehovas witnesses. That would be misleading information on a page about the beliefs of the majority of Christians Cs01kh (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does talk about mainstream views too: mainstream Muslims believe that Jesus was not crucified but was bodily raised up to heaven by God, Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 17:25, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you said jehovas witnesses are a group that diverged from the majority of Christians beliefs, then why will you not allow the words "diverged from the majority of islamic beliefs" to be added to al Ahmadiyya? Cs01kh (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article does say Ahmadiyya's recognition of Ahmad as a prophet has been characterized as heretical by mainstream Muslims, who believe that Muhammad was the final prophet, and the Ahmadi movement has faced non-recognition and persecution in many parts of the world. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 17:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it states "heretical by mainstream muslims" but I'm trying to complete the statement by adding "and are less than 1% of all muslims" Cs01kh (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also mentioned in the article: However, most independent sources variously estimate the population to be at least 10 to 20 million worldwide, thereby representing around 1% of the world's Muslim population. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 17:30, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

so if its 10-20million al ahmadia in a (current) world islamic population of 2billion+, that makes it 0.5-1% al ahmadia.

So why wont you allow a statement that claims al ahmadia is 1%? Cs01kh (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We already have that statement here. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 17:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which is not the text that mentions them on the "islamic belief of Jesus" page, that i am trying to clarify. Or if you dont want to state the percentage (because youve placed it somewhere else), why wont you allow it to say "a very small minority" so as not to unintentionally mislead people into thinking that they are a large or significant proportion of the people? Cs01kh (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

traditionally, mainstream Muslims believe that Jesus was not crucified but was bodily raised up to heaven by God, while Ahmadi Muslims reject this belief tells the reader that Ahmadi Muslims have a minority view on Jesus's death mainstream...while. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 17:48, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it doesn't state they are the majority, but it doesn't clarify how very small the group is,

The "while" wording could still mean that they are 20% of the population to a reader of the page (which at 20%, would still be a minority for the "while" wording to be used). Cs01kh (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the exact edit you want to make? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 17:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to add the following text, after the group is mentioned, but before their beliefs are stated: "(who account to approximately 1% of all muslims)" Cs01kh (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really want to specify a number here? How about while Ahmadi Muslims, a minority Muslim sect, reject.... The "minority Muslim sect" wording is used in the Ahmadiyya article. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:05, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be a number, the wording "a minority Muslim sect" would be acceptable Cs01kh (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can add it then. Let's see what happens. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:12, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cs01kh You don't need the parentheses (brackets) for "a minority Muslim sect." Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

do I need a comma before or after "a minority muslim sect" Cs01kh (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both, like while Ahmadi Muslims, a minority Muslim sect, reject. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, I'll correct it Cs01kh (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advocacy, religious missions, or recruitment of any kind, and opinion pieces. This is a neutral encylopedia, not Reddit. Take your hateful comments somewhere else; you're clearly WP:NOTHERE. GenoV84 (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Admin noticeboard discussion started

I have started WP:ANI#Cs01kh: topic ban needed, suggesting that you would be topic banned from religion-related editing. You are welcome to comment in that discussion. Fram (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you want to block me from all islam pages, because of my edits of "Jesus in islam".

If you want to ban me, it should be from this page only.

Or are you (and others) a group who want the information on islam on most Wikipedia's pages to contain severe errors? Cs01kh (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for editing to right great wrongs..

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, you have proved your group of administrators are anti-islamic, by not allowing the corrections to be made on the "islamic view on jesus" pages Cs01kh (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're only proving right great wrongs. 172.58.208.210 (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no, my edit was only to state "minority sect" to the "AlHamduLillah" group, which they are Cs01kh (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

incorrect claim of disruptive editing

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cs01kh (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

mistake in editing was made at beginning when first joined, which seemed like edit warring. This then was corrected to a single non-offensive edit, the administrators then stuck to my first incorrect edit though no disruptive editing was made Cs01kh (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline - only one open unblock request at a time please. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It was an unblock request (that I thought was done incorrectly, so I tried again, in doing so: I ended up with 2 requests that would be accepted as "unblock request"

blocked on first edit attempts

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cs01kh (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

when first editing, I didn't know there was a chat/discussion section for edits being made. So it looked like edit warring. But once this was understood, the edit being made was not offensive (it was to state that AlHamduLillah group on the "islamic view of jesus" was a minority sect. This should not be classed as an offensive edit, but the administrator would then refer to my earlier edits when i didnt know there was a discussion section. The administrators now thinki am deliberately trying to sabotage the page, when the (latest) language and wording placed was only to state that they are "a minority sect"Cs01kh (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your comments above and on the ANI thread about this make it clear you are here to right great wrongs and are not here to help improve the encyclopedia. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:09, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Why have you updated me with the statement: "And they are people who DO class themselves as Muslims? When I am not rejecting it

I have been blocked, but then I receive an email stating (at me): "and they are people who DO class themselves as muslims" When i am not rejecting their claim of being Muslim! My correction was only to clarify the group's size in proportion to all people who claim to be a muslim (I.e. to state they are a minority sect!) Cs01kh (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]