User talk:Xevorim

Hebrew language

Hello, per the Manual of Style, a page which has used a dating convention consistently should not be switched. The debate is ongoing, but Wikipedia's policy does not limit the BC/AD convention to articles related to Christian topics (As I explained to the other editor, numerous pages exist where this has been debated to no end, e.g. (WP:BCE)). Brando130 (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the page history, its obvious that BCE/CE was the established convention in the past. My apologies. Brando130 (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello Xevorim,

You commented "All that is great but..." in the discussion page of Article Qur'an. I want to ask; do you really mean it, I mean do you really understand my thougths about Veyselic Numbers and find them great, or you just said it for I have written so much pages there?

Regards. Veysel Peru Veyselperu (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of Qur'an

I added the various opinions from a scholarly work. it is well known that there is no consensus on the meaning of the word Qur'an. One opinion quoted for example is that of Imam Shafi'i, one of the 4 great Imams of Islamic jurispredence. Claiming that only 1 meaning is correct is POV and has no evidence, as such it is best to list the main opinion (of which 4 are regarded as the most common and well-founded) and in summary mention which is the most commonly accepted, which I have done.

No work on the sciences of the Qur'an omits these matters, so to be fair and NPOV we must list them all.Musa abu A'isha (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that there are several valid opinions on the origin of Quran. However, wikipedia is not the place to mention them all. Mentioning the most accepted 1 will suffice.--Xevorim (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be handy to be able to pick 1 and say 'Well its the most common, so let's just ignore the rest', however that would not be scholarly at all. As there is no clear definition of the word, a brief look at the different proposals is necessary. Look up any word with a disputed etymology, there is always an introduction to the alternate etymolgies and a discussion around them. That is how not only Wikipedia works, but indeed how all linguistic articles work. Musa abu A'isha (talk) 12:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember this is an encyclopedia. Linguistic articles are the best example that not all scholarly views are mentioned. If that happened, you'd have very long un-encyclopedic articles. Maybe an article on the etymology of the Quran would be a good place to list all of the scholarly opinions on the origin of the word. Such as the Arab (etymology) page.--Xevorim (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Mohammed in Hinduism:the sub-section has returned with a bigger vengeance

Hello Xerovim,

I remember your assistance with the "Hindu views of Mohammed" article. Much appreciated. Right now, the sub-section has returned with a bigger and badder kick-ass version 10000.0 (apologies for tarnishing Hollywood!)

I've tried talking and discussing with the user Wikidās ॐ but to no avail. I've aired a lot of my views in the Mohammed Talk page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad

I'm no scholar but including a few fringe views of "Hindus" within an article of Mohammed sounds ever more ridiculous and alarming given the fact that all these views are "extremely positive" and even consider him to be an Avatar of God.

Also note the fact that the "Dashavatar" section also contained a few pro-Islamic fringe views...I talked in the talk page and had that moved to another section. Here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da%C5%9B%C4%81vat%C4%81ra#The_.22Islamic.22_avatars_of_Vishnu.21

As you can see in the Mohammed talk page, I've even suggested including a few more ridiculous "theories" (including "Mecca was a Vedic Shrine!") if the "Mohammed in Hinduism article" is to be included.

I've already talked to Paul B (talk) but as he seems to be tied up at the moment, I would ask for your assistance. Maybe you can bring about some rationality in the article and help me out? Thank you.freewit (talk) 09:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late response. Unfortunately, I'm also really tied up these days :( --Xevorim (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halp?

Hey there,

My Mac seems not to display Syriac properly even though NO OTHER script is broken. (If you have a Mac, got a suggestion?) Therefore, can you help me on the article Sawm? The etymology from Syriac ṣawm-ā requires someone to stick it in and I cannot. If you would be so kind? ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 02:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm not sure how to fix that :(

Anyways, I added ܨܘܡܐ to the etymology section.--Xevorim (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Why don't you tell yourself that? Aren't you edit waring on the article? --Lanternix (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would make things easier to discuss disputed matters in discussion pages (that's why they're there in the first place), instead of engaging in endless reverts. And according to WP:BRD, if your edit is reverted because it goes against (common or previous consensus)...then you should discuss and gather a new consensus before changing back your previous edits.Xevorim (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was no previous consensus whatsoever. And before preaching about talk pages, why don't you use them in the first place before reverting referenced material? --Lanternix (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you discuss the matter in the talk page like everyone else! There is a section about it by the way.Xevorim (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I already discussed it before by the way! Would you like me to send you a link for that? Now, why didn't YOU use the talk page of the article before preaching about it? --Lanternix (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss it...not write your opinion regarding the matter then change the article accordingly! Xevorim (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the third time, why didn't YOU discuss it instead of just preaching it? --Lanternix (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did discuss it. I was part in the previous discussions and a consensus was actually generated at that time. I personally don't mind metioning an age really, but not against a common consensus! I mean this is a sensitive article that would offend millions by the implication of mentioning the age. Xevorim (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why my contributions in the talk page were deleted? they have the aim of improving the article.

Why my contributions in the talk page were deleted? they have the aim of improving the article underliying some missed very details like.

1/Arabic has infinitive.

dar=he turns , dawaran=to turn

2/There is another mood in Arabic. حَتَّى إِذَا أَتَوْا عَلَى وَادِ النَّمْلِ قَالَتْ نَمْلَةٌ يَا أَيُّهَا النَّمْلُ ادْخُلُوا مَسَاكِنَكُمْ لَا يَحْطِمَنَّكُمْ سُلَيْمَانُ وَجُنُودُهُ وَهُمْ لَا يَشْعُرُونَ

yahtimanna in "la yahtimannakum"

yahtimanna is distinct form yahtiman (energitic mood)

3/Nisba. There are nisbas with ni,wi,zi (san'aani,mawlawi,razi)

best reagards

Humanbyrace (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See article talk page...I replied there.--Xevorim (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop introducing jokes into articles, such as those you created at Main Page. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, and contributions of this type are considered vandalism. Continuing to add jokes and other disruptive content into articles may lead to your being blocked from editing.

Akkadian

Hello,

how much knowledge of Akkadian do you have?

Could you help me with a translation?

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 13:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]