User talk:Thefifthlord/Archives/April 2014

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Visual3DEnterpriseBoxArt.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Visual3DEnterpriseBoxArt.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Samael, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aza (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Samael, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

My version has less original research and far more citations/proper references.. Please don't revert something blindly again without checking/reading it first. If you are not an expert on the field, go away.. you are detracting from the articles credibility by reverting to a version that actually was mostly drivel from non-credible sources. Thefifthlord (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

No, you paraphrase and cite sources that directly state what you're adding to the article or leave the article alone. That's how Wikipedia works. We don't care about experts. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I did just that, if you're too lazy to read my sources properly that's your fault not mine, some of these topics are so broad reaching I'd have to quote several dozen lines to make the connection clear. Thefifthlord (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

What were you thinking?

Here you redirect the entire Azrael article to Azazel, claiming "Azriel is not Israfel, see Jewish and Christian Ethics with a Criticism on Mahomedism Page 10." The article didn't mention Israfel at all. Furthermore, the source you cite is outdated at best, and as seen here, page 10 doesn't discuss Islam at all, much less Azrael.

Considering that and this other edit (which makes no sense since the article doesn't imply that Samael is Azazel or Azrael at all, I have to ask why you're bothering with the angel articles at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you even read the source? It refutes the entire name of Azrael calls it a misnomer of Azazel, which means it should be redirected! Outdated Source? These topics are ancient >4000-5000 years.. and in if anything makes it less prone new-age bastardification than most newer sources.

Furthermore even the existing references of that article refute the name Azrael: As examples I will use references 5, 6, 7, 8

Reference 6: Qur'an 32:11 Reference 7: Qur'an 31:34

both use the name "Malik Al-maut" in the original Arabic!

Reference 8: Hanauer, J.E. (1907), Folk-lore of the Holy Land: Muslim, Christian and Jewish, Chapter V: The Angel of Death references the Qur'an which uses the name "Malik Al-maut" not "Azrael"!

Reference 5: Historical Dictionary of Prophets in Islam and Judaism. I've already proved the name of the archangel of death in Islam is "Malik Al-maut" in Judaism the name is "Samael". Where is the reference to Azrael? There is NONE! It's just a mistranslation based off of the authors own misunderstanding of the Judaeo Christian angel of death who's name is "Samael".

Even the page on Islamic view on angels has a reference and a quote for how the only name mentioned is not Azrael! "He is only referred as malak al-maut, meaning angel of death, in the Quran.[5]"

"As to Azrael, no doubt it comes from the Azazel of Moses, the angel to whom God devoted the scape-goat on the day of Atonement the Azael of the Talmud and the Zohar." on that same page!Thefifthlord (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The article on Azrael implied they were the same, and the previous article of Samael also implied they were the same. Hence the distinction! The previous article explicitly said without reference that Samael was the Judaeo-Christian Satan aka Azazel

Honestly please read things through before reversing my edits!Thefifthlord (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Please stop. Articles on Wikipedia do not give fringe material equal weight to majority viewpoints; content in articles are given representation in proportion to their prominence. If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This includes minority view points from scattered outdated 19th century works that fail to appreciate centuries of works that separate figures such as Azazel and Azrael. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Please stop. NOR Please stop. Questionable Sources

It is your OPINION, that this is fringe material, I have actual references that concur with my actions. You have absolutely NOTHING! Fail to appreciate what works? Name me more than one work that translates an ancient text and uncovers the name "Azrael" in the actual text? Guess what? There aren't any! You are referencing sources who's own primary sources/references use a different name. The only references that even use the name "Azrael" are secondary and tertiary sources which themselves quote the Quran, which is the primary source. The primary source as I've proved earlier uses a different name than the secondary/tertiary sources(making the entire article's use of the name "Azrael" wrong, therefore the secondary and tertiary sources are not verifiable and not reliable under Wikipedia guidelines!

Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim ONLY if that has been published by a RELIABLE secondary source.

Taken directly from Wikipedia:Verifiability

Further information: Wikipedia:Notability If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Reverted again. You are not a moderator, and your opinion in this matter does not refute fact nor Wikipedia policy. Please address my complaints before making any further edits.Thefifthlord (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)