User talk:Abdulgoswami

Welcome!

Hello, Abdulgoswami, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Garuda, have removed content without an explanation. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page and how to develop articles
Help pages
Tutorial
Article wizard for creating new articles
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Flyer22 (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Kurukshetra War. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. You are going through articles removing any use of the words 'myth' or 'mythology', which is not just a violation of NPOV but is also breaking links or changing them to inappropriate links. Note that we have an article on Hindu mythology Doug Weller (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Doug Weller. I also notice that you did actually add the term mythology to Splitting of the moon, an article on Islam. You also removed info on Islam from Religion in China, which gives me the impression that you're on a mission against Islam and pro-Hinduism. Take care. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did that to point the bias that you and others are propogating. Why is it that mythology is associated with Hinduism (a major world religion) yet not with Islam (another major world religion)? Do you not see the bias of this? Removing the word 'myth' from certain pages removes this bias that favours the Abrahamic religions.

Get real. See Christ myth theory, for example. And removing "myth" from Hindu-related articles, while adding it to Islam-related articles is hypocrite, to say the least. And before you judge my style of editing, you'll first have to acquantance yourself with my edits, and prove that you yourself can set a standrad in this regard. So far, you don't. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulgoswami, you may be right about your point of systemic bias. But the approach you are taking is wrong. Wikipedia is not a like a school teacher whom you can ask a question and get a straight answer. You will need to hunt for the answer yourself. Here are some decent, acceptable, things you could do:

Check if the use of the term "myth" is reliably sourced. If it is not, you can replace it with something softer such as "it is believed that..." But, you can't make it appear as if a myth is a historical fact, which you did in some of your edits. You can see how the corresponding issues are described in other religions and use similar wording. This is the minimum you can do.
If you are more serious about the issue, you can raise the issue at WP:WikiProject Hinduism and/or WP:WikiProject Religion. There, people with expertise on the matter may offer their views.
You can study the page Mythology and understand what the term means and why some ideas are labelled as mythology and others are not. Read some of the sources cited there, and try to understand why.

I am myself not an expert in comparative religion, but my impression is that the labeling of Hindu beliefs as "myths" goes back to colonial times, and Hindus were quite happy to label them as such. The Hindus at that time did not think of "mythology" as a negative term. Things might have changed, things can change, and you can make that change happen.

In all cases, please note that this is your issue. If you want to make a difference, you need to work on it. Welcome to Wikipedia! - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

It appears that you have no interest in complying with policy and are here to edit per your wish and that alone. Any further edit in this manner will result in a block. —SpacemanSpiff 16:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer my question that I left on your page SpacemanSpiff

Please read the messages above. If you have any specific problem with some articles, don't bring it to others. As I've already warned you, any further disruption will result in a block. —SpacemanSpiff 16:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have read them but they offer no rational explanation for the bias that exists on Wikipedia that favours the Abrahamic religions. Can you please offer one? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdulgoswami (talk • contribs)

October 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for disruptive editing and an unwillingness to adhere to policies, and making WP:POINTY edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —SpacemanSpiff 16:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still no valid reason offered by Spaceman Spliff as to why Wikipedia exhibits a bias in favour of Christianity and Islam to the detriment of other major world religions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdulgoswami (talk • contribs)

It doesn't. Wikipedia has articles on Christian mythology as well as Islamic mythology. Also, if you see any problems in some articles, please fix those articles; don't introduce the same problem in other articles. utcursch | talk 17:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Loads of examples, eg Adam and Eve. And you are trying to get Wikipedia to treat religious texts as history - which we rarely do and even then only when they are backed by other sources. #### — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 18:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would not say there are "loads of examples"; the word "myth" permeates through most of the pages with regard to Hinduism and Buddhism yet is not used on the main pages regarding the Abrahamic religions. Why is there such bias on wikipedia? Blocking me has shown disregard to this important point which I am making. To Doug - which sources back Muhammad splitting the moon in half? Why is the word "myth" not used in the page describing this Islamic belief? Either the word "myth" should be used in all the religious pages or none out of respect and equality. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdulgoswami (talk • contribs)

No, editors should not get to decide where the words 'myth' and 'mythological' can be used. We can only use the description where sufficient reliable sources - see WP:RS - use the term. As for Splitting of the Moon, look for sources describing this as mythological. I suggest you discuss them on the talk page first as you are new and sometimes it's hard to know when a source meets RS. I'd be glad to help you there. Doug Weller (talk) 10:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Christian mythology and Category:Christian mythology for some Christian mythology. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NB: the 'Christian mythology" article has the following interesting line: "Early Christians contrasted their sacred stories with "myths", by which they meant false and pagan stories." You may have a point. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joshua Jonathan Except that we aren't early Christians, and one of those sources (Eliade) is mentioned in the same article as saying that the cyclical sense of time held by early (and current Christians) is a mythical aspect of Christianity. Doug Weller (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Your query about the use of the word "mythology" has already been answered above. Please stop making disruptive edits, or you will be blocked indefinitely. utcursch | talk 16:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been answered. Why do Christianity and Islam have separate pages for 'mythology' yet for Hinduism and Buddhism the word 'myth' permeates the majority of the pages that deal with them? Why don't you edit articles about Christianity, which don't include the word myth, and add the word 'myth' to them? [Abdul]

Notice of Edit warring in the Religious conversion article

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --CounterTime (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. utcursch | talk 14:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is for your continuing obsession with replacing the word "mythology" with unsuitable alternatives (example) without discussion or sources, when multiple other editors have asked you not to do that. You have already been told that if you see any problem in Islam and Christianity-related articles, fix those problems. Do not introduce those problems in Hinduism-related articles. Please take some to go through Wikipedia policies and guidelines (linked above in the numerous notes left by other editors on your talk page above). utcursch | talk 14:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arjuna, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amaravati. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. utcursch | talk 01:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]