User talk:BhaiSaab/A1

Style

I've not looked at Hinduism - I'll check it out - but that's not good style. Good information, but not good style. We shouldn't be trying to maximize information/sentence. Different points deserve their own sentences.Timothy Usher 04:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Please do return; we work well together.Timothy Usher 05:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islam Peer Review

I am requesting a peer review for the Islam article. If you have any suggestions, please let us know. Thank you very much. BhaiSaab 01:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright; I'll take a look later or perhaps tomorrow. joturn e r 01:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I really can't

Dear BrotherSir :)

It is sweet of you to think of nominating me for admin, but I'm afraid I'll have to turn it down. I get in too many fights and I do lose my temper. I have borderline Aspergers Syndrome and social skills are not my strongest point. Having just gotten myself involved in an Arbcom case (I defended someone, was attacked, and narrowly escaped being branded an "edit warrior"), I don't think an adminship would even pass at this point.

I do very much appreciate the compliment. Zora 11:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal position

Thank you for your question. Portal links should be placed at the end of the article, in the See Also section as per Wikipedia:Portal#How_to_find_portals. I mistakenly placed the Islam portal in external links, but it is now in the correct position. I have also changed the other articles you highlighted. Green Giant 22:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal protection

Done. -- Cheers Szvest 10:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

browser bar formatting

Thanks for the heads-up, and sorry for the revert. Maybe that discussion should be linked from the template.--ragesoss 22:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JP cartoon victims

You might be interested in the table I've just created, which lists Wikipedias JP-cartoon victims. Raphael1 16:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't matter

If you feel that there is a problem with some of the other articles regarding religion, then I suggest you go and fix them. There is not any rules that says that unless all other articles regarding all other religions include something, then it can't be in the islam article. We have been discussing what links to include re criticism in the islam article, and we have been voting about it. The concensus was clear, and the decision was to include this link. -- Karl Meier 08:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing is that you should quit stalking me. It is not allowed, and If you continue your current behavior I'll report you and make sure that you get blocked. Please see WP:Stalking -- Karl Meier 08:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove the dmoz criticism link in the Islam article

We had a long discussion of link policy more than a year ago, I think. We had dozens of links, proselytizing sites (from all sorts of groups, big and small, mainstream and wacko) and vitriolic anti-Islam sites. People were fighting over links all the time. So we said, NO proselityzing sites, NO criticism sites; we'd just put up the links to the DMOZ directories, which link to everything. We didn't have to pick and choose, or fight over links.

If we're going to link to the pro-Islam DMOZ directory, it's only fair to link to the anti-Islam directory. That policy has kept things under control for a long time. Don't mess with it, please. Zora 08:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are supposed to present both sides of an issue. You can't just say that all criticism of Islam is supposed to go into the "Criticism" article and can be ruthlessly expunged elsewhere. That is trying to manipulate readers and it violates Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Without a neutrality policy, this encyclopedia would not exist. You will have no success in trying to change it. You can make yourself, and others, very unhappy if you TRY to do so, but what's the point? Just accept that we have to be neutral, and then try to make sure that things really ARE neutral. There's a lot in WP that isn't. Zora 17:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BrotherSir :) you raise a very good point. I know about the agreement because I was one of the editors who fought over it. The discussion is buried in the archives of the talk page, and it would be a major effort to dig it out. However, it should be posted permanently at the top of the talk page so that new editors can get up to speed quickly. I think I'll ask at the Village Pump for comments on how this can be done. Thank you for pointing to a big problem in "how things work". Zora 18:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islam in the US

I had written what I though a fair, neutral presentation. Then CltFn turned it into an indictment of US Muslims as terrorists. If you think the article is bad, user the history tab and look at my version before it was edited.

Gosh I'm tired of dealing with this. I'm not a Muslim, but I do want to be fair. Zora 02:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been accused of being a Muslim. Funny, coz I'm a Buddhist. Of course, I've also been accused of being anti-Muslim. Zora 02:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

Well you are free read into it whatever you like, but if you have specific facts that you wish to challenge , then go ahead. --CltFn 04:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try to focus on the articles rather than on the editors ok? If you want to discuss certain points, OK, but we do not need to begin accusing others and pointing fingers.--CltFn 05:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad

It may sound awkward but whatever goes there needs to get the story straight and not try to demonize Muhammad nor glorify him. Don't hesitate to edit that bit (if you haven't already) and copy-edit the wording to make it sound better but keep the essentials there if you would. Netscott 19:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I agree with Mpatel as the wording you changed it to just sounded odd... :-) I reallize that my wording might have sounded awkward to you but for native communciators it sounds "encyclopedic". Netscott 19:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per your request

Read the next paragraph of the article: allowing the rape of female slaves doesn’t sound like recommending kindness to me - if you have a different perspective to share, I’d be interested to hear it.

And hey, since we’re chatting: don’t act as Amibidhrohi’s meatpuppet, as you did on Dhimmi [1]. The posting of spam [2], [3] is bad enough without you responding to it.Timothy Usher 05:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surena

Because Surena has dumped lots of patent nonsense into Iranian Revolution. Pecher ^Talk 07:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Muslims in mosques

As other users have pointed out, using original research to suppress material from scholarly sources is unacceptable. Pecher ^Talk 07:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watching Talk:Mosque; there is no need to fill my talk page with reminders. Pecher ^Talk 21:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your email: there are plenty of other, cheaper sources. For example, The Mosque: History, Architectural Development & Regional Diversity by Martin Frishman and Hasan-Uddin Khan costs a trifle, but is considered the basic reference text about mosques. BTW, the article does not use this book now. Pecher ^Talk 21:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good bye

It seems like I will leave Wikipedia soon. It has been my pleasure to work with you. See: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Raphael1 Raphael1 19:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure I could, but honestly if the Arbitration commitee doesn't understand my issue, I don't think I will. Raphael1 10:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either the new username would behave according to the same pattern, and be immediately recognized as the previous user, or it would change its ways, in which case there'd be no problem.Timothy Usher 10:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your VandalProof Application

Dear BhaiSaab,

Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact with the new 1.2 version release it has even more power. As such we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that that you have too few edits in the mainspace. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again in the not too distant future. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof.

WP:3RR

BhaiSaab, you've violated the three-revert rule. I suggest you self-revert before I report you.Timothy Usher 01:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

--PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AWW

BhaiSaab, please avoid unsourced weasel words. If you have a source, present it. This article is currently undersourced (including the accurate but intolerably general reference to "hadith") I would respect it more if you added fact tags. You can't just run around arbitrarily hedging attributed claims.Timothy Usher 06:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Your recent edit to Triple H

My edit was not vandalism, I was trying to update a current event and was trying to type it fast enough. Don't call me a vandal again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.180.1.141 (talk • contribs)

Reversions to Mosque

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing.

I'm sure you are familiar with the three-revert rule and so this comment may not be necessary. Nevertheless, the mosque article is volatile enough as it is; we don't need any revert warring. And using pop-ups to make revert warring faster and easier is a definite no-no. joturn e r 20:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hmm, I guess my godmode-lite was a little fast on this revert!. Thanks very much anyway! CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 20:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashmoo & Islam edits

Hi BhaiSaab. I think we may have edited simultaneously which mixed things up a bit. The log shows edits that I didn't do.

My only change was to get rid of the <unreferenced> tag. I looked on talk and couldn't see any description of the problem. If you feel the article is unreferenced I think it is better to add ^{[citation needed]} tags to the sentence in question. Regards, Ashmoo 05:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for the defense of my user page ! Travelbird 21:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Daniel Pipes

I generally have been trying to remove categories like that, I think it is fine to mention the claims in the article's body as long as the sources are sufficient, however when a category is included, it gives the impression that the claim is indisputably true, which of course is not true. In case you are wondering I am not just doing this in articles about people or organizations that are seen as anti-muslim, I am constantly having to remove the terrorist category from the Hamas articvle as well.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The passage you just added does not seem to have any references, can you add any that can be considered reliable?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am generally opposed to the existance of such categories, however I would not argue with its inclusion in articles about Russian and European attacks on Muslim immigrants, or other similar articles.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source you are using does not actually say that Pipes made "statements against Muslims", it just says that he holds controversial views, do you think you can change the passage to better reflect the source?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I would be fine if you didn't want to, but I think I would write "among most muslims" or "in the Muslim community, Pipes is generally seen", since as you know you can never really gauge the thoughts of an entire religion.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I enjoyed compromising with you. :) Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Muslim sentiment

I see your discussion with Moshe on this cat. Might I suggest you start a new Category:Anti-Islam sentiment as Anti-Muslim is more geared towards actual individuals rather than the religous concept of Islam. I think there are sufficient articles to merit such a category. Netscott 00:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there was a lot of support for that Category on both sides of the issue. Netscott 00:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what, if you source the proper qualifications for categorization (remember WP:NOR) and agree to include them in the Cat, I'll start it. Netscott 01:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well if you'll work at it... ideally the category qualifications would need to as clear as possible and well sourced (without being self-referential). What do you think? Netscott 01:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ready to go. I would strongly advise against adding any particular article until setting up proper well sourced qualifications for it. Netscott 02:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I think about it probably the easiest way to set up criteria for that category would be to just rely upon definitions for anti- and sentiment. Doing so wouldn't be original research. Netscott 03:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is for articles related to persons or organizations that express sentiments opposed to the religion of Islam. seems a bit more comprehensive and logical. Netscott 03:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm off to bed, but I'd suggest you make a post on Wikiproject Islam's talk pages or perhaps the Muslim guild. Take it easy. Netscott 03:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, I thought we kinda agreed to include the paragraph you added instead of the category. Like I said above, although I generally disagree with such categories I would agree with its inclusion in some articles, but I do not think it is appropriate with academics like Daniel Pipes, as it seems needlessly inflammatory.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Ahbash

Please, Read THIS and:

No matter how Al-Ahbash / Habashies deny, the fact remain the same: The most FUNDAMENTAL / CRUCIAL difference IS that Al-Ahbash / Habashies DENY the TOTALITY of the Quran.[4],[5], [6]

McKhan

3RR and Islam

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

This identical warning is being added to the other user's talk page. You are both close to violating the rule. Please discuss on the talk page and seek a way to find consensus and agreement. GRBerry 19:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qadiani targeting Muslim articles for deletion

Can you check this Qadiani AeomMai who is targetting Muslim pages for deletion. I am very busy on a project. Siddiqui 19:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some Changes to Mosque

Pecher made some changes to the Style section in the Mosque article. Your approval (or disapproval) of the of the section is requested on the article's talk page. joturn e r 03:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On User:Timothy Usher

Assalamu Alaikum. Please don't confront Timothy unless you really have to. He makes it a habit of infuriating people with his allegations and POV-pushing, and then complaining to admins until he find one naive enough to act on his complaining and affect a user block. He'd done it once to you already, he's done it with me, and he's tried to do something to Faisal. He's playing games here. It's probably best to just stick to the editing, and make sure that articles relating to Islam remain NPOV, and free of their polemicism. I appreciate your help. His Excellency... 19:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming

Be apprised that your most recent spamming[7],[8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] has been reported.Timothy Usher 00:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 10:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

BhaiSaab, Timothy is right about internal spamming but he was previously mis-citing WP:SPAM when trying to admonish editors who were soliciting the involvement of other editors who shared a given POV relative to editing on a given topic or relative to a given discussion. I finally explained to him the errors of his ways in terms of citing WP:SPAM (which he never acknowleged unfortunately). Relative to my educating him on WP:SPAM he should have just warned you against the cross posting that you were doing... which is sooner viewed as bad on Wikipedia rather than go straight to WP:ANI to "report" you. As you may know I actually previously warned User:Mystìc against such behavior myself. I'm not sure what has happened as of late relative to the editing/discussion of User:Timothy Usher since he decided to defend the hateful displays that User:FairNBalanced was making, but I now am sooner hesitant to assume good faith in his regard (unfortunately). Netscott 18:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is a guideline true... but I have seen people blocked for it (and rightly so imho) on a number occassions so it is a guideline that is taken rather seriously... particularly when the spamming is viewed to "rally up the troops". Netscott 18:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject

Because I'm waiting for the massive war to end. There's no point joining the Muslim Guild, because there's curently a proposed merger to the Wikiproject, and there's no point joining the Wikiproject because its members are having a fight to the death, or so it would seem. When the issue is resolved, I intend to join, but only when everyone has stopped fighting - and that's looking to be a while, unfortunately. Dev920 19:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some Changes to Mosque

From Talk:Mosque#What About Now?:

I made some changes to the article, using only the Qur'an to present the idea that polytheists are prohibited from mosques but letting the information about Omar II speak for itself. Essentially, I wanted to not make a conclusion on whether Islamic law prohibits monotheist non-Muslims from entering mosques (as we can't seem to make that conclusion clearly ourselves) and instead let the facts speak for themselves. What does everything think of this version? joturn e r 02:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments would be appreciated. joturn e r 02:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]