User contributions for Omar Jabarin
A user with 38 edits. Account created on 5 May 2021.
20 April 2024
- 18:5318:53, 20 April 2024 diff hist +1,065 User talk:Omar Jabarin →Some friendly advice: Reply Tag: Reply
- 14:0214:02, 20 April 2024 diff hist +619 User talk:Omar Jabarin →Some friendly advice: Reply Tag: Reply
- 13:5813:58, 20 April 2024 diff hist −239 Talk:Second Temple edited non-neutral language. apologies. current
- 00:4800:48, 20 April 2024 diff hist +246 User talk:Firefangledfeathers →Hi, I sent you a message regarding a previous discussion.: Reply Tag: Reply
19 April 2024
- 18:5518:55, 19 April 2024 diff hist +2,285 Talk:Second Temple →Not factual. "The Temple Mount, where both Solomon's Temple and the Second Temple stood": Reply Tag: Reply
- 04:3404:34, 19 April 2024 diff hist +775 Wikipedia:Teahouse →Need Guidance on Handling a Content Dispute Where Tags Are Treated as Vandalism: Reply Tag: Reply
- 03:4103:41, 19 April 2024 diff hist +121 Wikipedia:Teahouse →Need Guidance on Handling a Content Dispute Where Tags Are Treated as Vandalism: Reply Tag: Reply
- 03:2903:29, 19 April 2024 diff hist +1,450 Wikipedia:Teahouse →Need Guidance on Handling a Content Dispute Where Tags Are Treated as Vandalism: new section Tag: New topic
18 April 2024
- 19:1019:10, 18 April 2024 diff hist +1,316 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard →Presenting information as indisputable fact when the first reference is the Bible: Reply Tag: Reply
- 18:5818:58, 18 April 2024 diff hist +182 User talk:CleverTitania →Hi, I sent you a message regarding a previous discussion.: new section Tag: New topic
- 18:5718:57, 18 April 2024 diff hist +182 User talk:Firefangledfeathers →Hi, I sent you a message regarding a previous discussion.: new section Tag: New topic
- 11:4811:48, 18 April 2024 diff hist +871 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard →Presenting information as indisputable fact when the first reference is the Bible: Reply Tag: Reply
- 00:0600:06, 18 April 2024 diff hist +764 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard →Presenting information as indisputable fact when the first reference is the Bible: Reply Tag: Reply
17 April 2024
- 23:0123:01, 17 April 2024 diff hist +892 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard →Presenting information as indisputable fact when the first reference is the Bible: Reply Tag: Reply
- 22:4122:41, 17 April 2024 diff hist +601 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard →Presenting information as indisputable fact when the first reference is the Bible: Reply Tag: Reply
- 17:1117:11, 17 April 2024 diff hist +526 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard →Presenting information as indisputable fact when the first reference is the Bible: Reply Tag: Reply
- 16:4416:44, 17 April 2024 diff hist +506 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard →Presenting information as indisputable fact when the first reference is the Bible: Reply Tag: Reply
- 16:2316:23, 17 April 2024 diff hist +891 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard →Presenting information as indisputable fact when the first reference is the Bible: new section Tag: New topic
- 15:2715:27, 17 April 2024 diff hist +254 Talk:Second Temple →Not factual. "The Temple Mount, where both Solomon's Temple and the Second Temple stood": Reply Tag: Reply
- 15:2615:26, 17 April 2024 diff hist +1,085 Talk:Second Temple →Not factual. "The Temple Mount, where both Solomon's Temple and the Second Temple stood": Reply Tag: Reply
- 14:5214:52, 17 April 2024 diff hist +260 User talk:Omar Jabarin →April 2024: Reply Tag: Reply
- 14:5114:51, 17 April 2024 diff hist +243 User talk:Omar Jabarin →April 2024: Reply Tag: Reply
- 14:4714:47, 17 April 2024 diff hist +366 Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism →User-reported: Reply Tag: Reply
- 14:3414:34, 17 April 2024 diff hist +272 User talk:Owenglyndur →Don't revert disputes without addressing them.: new section current Tag: New topic
- 14:3214:32, 17 April 2024 diff hist +8 Second Temple Undid revision 1219394855 by Owenglyndur (talk) Tags: Undo Reverted
- 14:3114:31, 17 April 2024 diff hist +19 Second Temple This is not vandalism. I didn't omit any information. And added a dispute tag. Resolve the dispute before you revert the edit. Tags: Undo Reverted
- 12:2612:26, 17 April 2024 diff hist +8 Second Temple Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for reasons mentioned in the discussion.. Tag: Reverted
- 12:1812:18, 17 April 2024 diff hist +19 Second Temple Disputed, "information that is particularly difficult to verify", "Existence of reliable sources that corroborate divergent claims" Tag: Reverted
- 12:0912:09, 17 April 2024 diff hist +424 Talk:Second Temple →Not factual. "The Temple Mount, where both Solomon's Temple and the Second Temple stood": Reply Tag: Reply
16 April 2024
- 21:2021:20, 16 April 2024 diff hist +679 Talk:Second Temple →Not factual. "The Temple Mount, where both Solomon's Temple and the Second Temple stood": Reply Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply
- 21:1521:15, 16 April 2024 diff hist +815 Talk:Second Temple →Not factual. "The Temple Mount, where both Solomon's Temple and the Second Temple stood": Reply Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply
- 20:4520:45, 16 April 2024 diff hist +151 User talk:Omar Jabarin →April 2024: Reply Tag: Reply
- 20:4120:41, 16 April 2024 diff hist −26 m Second Temple Undid revision. You can mentioned that it is "believed", keyword "believed" as you said it that Solomon's Temple stood there. Otherwise, this is purely a non-factual statement unless you provide evidence. Tags: Undo Reverted
- 20:2020:20, 16 April 2024 diff hist −26 m Second Temple 0 archaeological or non biblical evidence for solomon's temple so this statement is non factual. Second Temple remained because that's one's existence is supported by evidence and that's also the subject of the article is actually talking about. Tag: Reverted
- 20:1420:14, 16 April 2024 diff hist +629 Talk:Second Temple →Not factual. "The Temple Mount, where both Solomon's Temple and the Second Temple stood": new section Tag: New topic
19 July 2021
- 08:1208:12, 19 July 2021 diff hist +179 Averroes Again, I agree with the removal of some unnecessary pictures like the waterfall and Aristotle pointing upwards. But a portrait of Galen who's a significant figure that influenced Ibn Rushd is fine in my opinion. Tags: Undo Reverted
- 07:5607:56, 19 July 2021 diff hist +194 Averroes Undid revision 1033131973 by Surtsicna (talk) There's nothing wrong with having pictures in a wikipedia article. Let the reader decide if it's significant or not. Tags: Undo Reverted
- 07:3807:38, 19 July 2021 diff hist +252 Averroes Undid revision 1033130612 by Surtsicna (talk) Tags: Undo Reverted
