User:Bless sins/talk5

Your edits to Christianity
I haven't touched them but I think the "God who is believed to be infinite" is probably WP:WEASEL and probably wrong. In general I think God is defined to be whatever is infinite (or not exist) and therefore if it turns out that Islam is in every regard correct, Christians would recognise Allah as that which they had been calling God as in Yahweh= that which is etc... --BozMo talk 20:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course it is difficult to be sure who means what in the case where they refer to something about which they are mistaken. Personally as a mathematician I have a problem with infinite anyway. However in general I think if most Christians discover all that there is is a non-infinite being (or non-transcendent anyway) or an infinite non-being they would say "there is no God" rather than "there is a God just he is an ordinary guy like us". Don Cuppitt got into all sorts of trouble in the Church for saying "I believe in God but God could just be the name of the void". So I think your edit is wrong but I am not going to change it. --BozMo talk 20:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Either of the two changes you suggest would be fine by me. --BozMo talk 22:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

User name
I saw your note at Wikipedia talk:Civility. You have an unusual name and I'm afraid that, given the Wikipedia practice of abbreviating names, you likely will continue to be addressed by your initials "BS." So I would say your choice is to either a) live with it, or b) open a new user account with a different name. If you chose the former, I would suggest that a sense of humour might help. If the latter, you might see if you could get your user contributions transferred to the new account.

With respect to whether what the other editor said was uncivil: Saying "...stop your BS" is uncivil in my view, but then, so is your statement "Stop making false allegations." His statement is merely a slight escalation of your statement. I note, however, that the two of you have been edit warring on that page. I understand from some of the comments that there may be a mediation in progress. That is one way to resolve such matters. If the most serious statement he has made is: "stop your BS," you might just choose to let it go, especially in view of your previous comment to him. BTW, the WP:CIV talk page is not the place to deal with disputes it is for discussions of the policy. However, yours is a good example of mild incivility, so I will leave your comment there and reference this reply. Sunray (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

revert
You obviously don't know what a revert is. A revert is "A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, deleting content or restoring deleted content, undoing page moves (sometimes called "move warring"), undoing administrative actions (sometimes called "wheel warring"), or recreating a page." My edit was not a revert, rather it was a partial rewrite of the section.  Yahel  Guhan  09:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Trench.jpeg
Can you please clarify on the image exactly what information was taken from the two books given? Was it maps? Doesn't seem like it so if it was text could you quote it? gren グレン 00:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

expanding Muslim military history task force
I have been reelected coordinator and brought up the old discussion about expanding Muslim military history to the present day. This has been an issue raised by Muslim editors when the task force was founded. It would be great if you could help expanding the articles that present what makes Islams treatment of war effect especially the Muslim warfare. I have been reading a bit on the topic and can help you with advice, but feel myself not confident enough with my limited knowledge. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)
The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply
thank you for contacting me. I actually rarely get involved in the english wikipedia. I do however contribute to the arabic wikipedia. the only times I edit english wikipedia pages are when I want to add the same article in a different language. with that being said, I dont see a need to start a whole new account for discussion or minor editing. my arabic wikipedia account is   ابن محمد. (67.171.224.169 (talk) 11:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)) warmest regards, Assalamu Alaikom

My RfB
I wanted to personally thank you, Bless sins, for your participation in my recent RfB. I am especially grateful and appreciative that your comments indicated that notwithstanding our differences in upbringing and outlooks about various issues, some of which are among the most contentious ones on wikipedia, you feel that as regards integrity and upholding wiki policy, you would think that I would be able to put my own POV aside and follow protocol. I have always tried to do so, and I appreciate it being noticed—thank you very much! I have heard the community's voice that they require more of a presence at RfA's of prospective bureaucrats, and I will do my best over the near future to demonstrate such a presence and allow the community to see my philosophy and practices in action. I am thankful and appreciative that in general, the community feels that I am worthy of the trust it requires of its bureaucrats, and I hope to continue to behave in a way that maintains your trust in me and my actions. I hope that over the near future, you will become comfortable and satisfied with my understanding of the particulars and subtleties inherent in the RfA process, and that I may be able to count on your support when I decide to once again undergo an RfB. If you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Fork article
A discussion is going on about the article Islam and anti-Christian persecution.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 11:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Polymaths
The point of the references and quotations is to show clearly that the person has been deemed a "polymath" by a reliable source. Otherwise, we'd be back in the state the article once used to be in, in which people would add the names of anyone they admired and whom they felt had a wide range of achievements.

There's no bright-line definition of a polymath other than "someone who has been called a polymath by a reliable source."

So, please don't delete or remove the quotations that demonstrate this point. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Continuing tit for tat
I don't know how long its been going on, but conflicts between you and Yahel Guhan spans several articles now. It does not appear that it is making much progress. If I can be so bold and to suggest I step in, and spend sometime today (it'll have to be later in the day now) looking over some of the articles and suggest some kind of middle ground between you two, if you are both willing. Mikebloke (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, that'd be a good idea.Bless sins (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad in Mecca
Salam Alaykum, I'm reviewing the article.-- Seyyed(t-c) 06:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I put a link of Britannica at the end of the article. You can also use Imam Ali to improve this one.

These are good bibliographies:
 * Modern biographies
 * Views of Muhammad in Islam and the West

I want to introduce some sources which you can use to imrove the article. First I should mention that I have read just an introduction about them. Some of them are more relevant to the issue of the article:

-- Seyyed(t-c) 06:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet by Karen Armstrong
 * Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time by Karen Armstrong
 * Muhammad: A Western Attempt to Understand Islam by Karen Armstrong
 * Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources by Martin Lings
 * Muhammad, Man of God by Seyyed Hossein Nasr
 * Muhammad: The Messenger of God by Betty Kelen
 * The Messenger of God: Muhammad: An Analysis of the Prophet's Life by Fethullah Gulen
 * In the Footsteps of Muhammad: Understanding the Islamic Experience by John Renard
 * And Muhammad Is His Messenger: The Veneration of the Prophet in Islamic Piety by Annemarie Schimmel


 * My dear friend the article is full of mistakes which I correct them whenever it's possible or mention in the talk page. Can you please withdraw the article or ask the others to help you with it.-- Seyyed(t-c) 16:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I found many sources and tried to put good ones on the talk page of article while reviewed. I tried to make your work easier, but apparently you aren't active on it at present. So can I put failed tag on it.-- Seyyed(t-c) 07:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the article didn't reach GA criteria. I hope my decision wouldn't disappoint you. I think it would be good article very soon and you can nominate it after resolving some major problems. God willing I'll put which criteria were not met on the article's talk page very soon.-- Seyyed(t-c) 04:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK
I think this DYK nom may have been in error. Thanks though :-) ITAQALLAH   22:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)
The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Saksjn
I don't check my email to often so if you want to talk its best to leave a message at my talk page. Thanks for responding. It seems the majority of users are atheist and its good to know there are others that believe in God. Saksjn (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Fitna discussion
Could I trouble you to preface your opinion in the article using 'appropriate' or 'inappropriate'? You can use the format already resent in the page by others. It just helps us gauge the consensus in the discussion. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  06:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Jihad Watch mediation active
Just letting you know that mediation on the in/ex -clusion of Jihad Watch from Cat Anti-Muslim sentiment is now happenning. SmithBlue (talk) 05:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Discrimination picture
Bless sins, please notice that Mecca img still appears randomly at Portal:Discrimination since the picture is in the list. I'm not sure how to fix that. Imad marie (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of images
You removed the "Christian Bypass" image on the Taif Saudi Arabia page. While some groups had linked to this as an example of Islamic discrimination I believe the picture properly explains that Muslim's prefer to keep certain aspects of their religious traditions separate from non-believers. Please do not engage in censorship of highway signs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saicome (talk • contribs) 18:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC) --Saicome (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

God Response
I've been rather busy lately with issues at various pages, but I finally have the time to respond to your questions. How do you imagine Him (or Her/It) to be? I believe that God is a loving, all powerful, omnipresent being that cared enough for us to provide a way for us to escape hell and spend eternity in heaven. I believe that he did that through the sacrifice of Jesus. Do you think God is present everywhere (inside all objects), or God is in Heaven but he watches us from there at all times? I believe that God is present all around us, but not necessarily inside all objects. I believe that God is omnipresent, meaning he can be everywhere at the same time. He is not bound by the laws of nature. In response to the major problem listed at the bottom of that page: God is omnipresent in the fact that he is everywhere he chooses to be; if God chooses to be everywhere but hell. Do you beleive God takes a particular shape of form, or that His physical description is beyond comprehension? I believe that God can take a physical form, but is not forced to. He is both spirit (Holy Spirit) and physical (Jesus). In that sense his description is beyond comprehension. Thanks for asking what I believed. I would enjoy hearing what you think about those questions as well. Theology is a difficult thing to grasp and understand, which is why there are so many different beliefs out there. I'm looking forward to hearing from you again, may God bless you! Saksjn (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't responded yet. I've been really busy with finals coming up at school and haven't had time. I'll answer as soon as I can. In the meantime God bless you! Saksjn (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree that God is not bound by space or time, he is outside our dimensions. One of the biggest difference between Catholic sects of Christianity and Protestant sects is the way we relate to God. In Catholicism, it's more of a relationship of awe and respect, like God is too holy to get close too. Protestants (I'm a protestant) believe that God made a way through Christ for us to be close to God. We are still awed by him and respect him, but we believe that he wants to be close to us and wants to have a relationship. When asked what my religion is, I answer that I am unreligous, but that I have a personal and active relationship with God, and that he has provided a way for me to go to heaven. I obey Him and follow his laws simply because I love Him. I believe that Jesus was both fully human and fully God. One question that I don't have an answer for but hope to learn some day is this: Did Jesus know he was the son of God as an infant and young child, or did God reveal it to him when he was say, 9-13? I've gotta go take an exam for school, I'll finish later. Saksjn (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

BQ
I was just about to implement what I had in mind for avoiding the M-word (for the reasons, see the "siege and demise" section) but there is now a little problem. Your most recent edits:
 * You reverted for the 4th time.
 * Any change to existing material I would make now would by my 4th revert.

There is a way out of this. Please, self-rv to my last version I can go ahead. Otherwise, we will have to wait (and I may report you). I will not risk a 3RR-violation for this. Neither should you. Str1977 (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of comment
Hello, I notice that you removed my comment (as you don't seem to have liked it). Whatever. Please undo your edit on child marriage, or I'll assume that you want to go out of your way to violate WP:STALK and WP:V. If you delete this message, I'll assume you have read it.Bless sins (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am free to remove posts from my talk page even if I do not have a header on the page like you have. Also, I did not just remove but also posted the answer in the edit summary: I reverted you because you provided no sound reasoning for your removal - WP is about verifiability not likelihood. I see no harm in retaining the tag a little longer. I don't understand why you call on me to und my edit. Why don't you do it yourself? Str1977 (talk) 07:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I will. But please remember a few things: Do not WP:STALK me again. Also, do not insert contentious unsourced information in. WP:V says "[unsourced information] should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." Therefore do not make such flagrant violations of the policy.Bless sins (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd advise you not to as by now some other editor has provided a reference. Which proves my reverting you wrong. Please be less quick to delete stuff. Str1977 (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: This edit
Hi,

I made this edit on Wikiproject politics. Before I made this your name appeared to be a redlink. If you disapprove of this edit, then please go ahead and revert me (or notify me and I'll self-revert).Bless sins (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bless sins. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  06:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)
The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sabr in Arabic
I added the Arabic to your article on sabr... I didn't know how to spell it but using two of the Qur'an verses I looked it up and it was saud (sukkun) ba (kasra) ra (sukkun). Just wanted to run this by you to make sure I didn't make any mistakes. gren グレン 17:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I had taken mine from here at verse 16... yours shows it saud (fatHa) ba (sukkun) ra (kasra) which would be like sab-ri... and I can't fully make out what it is on the pot. gren グレン 21:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

islamic peace
i need your kind attention thanks. please send message..122.161.36.11 (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC) zikrullah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.36.11 (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Manzikert
It was a humiliating defeat; you lose and then you have to kiss the ground before the Sultan and have his boot placed on your head and then pay annual tribute? It sucks if I was Romanus!Tourskin (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What? Muslims bow their head to the ground five times a day, not because some foreign King has defeated them. No, its because they submit to God, do they not? Is that not how they are Muslim? The battle is humiliating in that it was such a disaster. Some Christians not only bow their heads to God, but lay their entire bodies flat out. This has nothing to do with piety or religion, generally speaking if your ruler, who is the most powerful man of the country, is forced to kiss the ground out of submission to another, it is considered humiliation. This is totally different from submission to God, which both Christians and Muslims do and Jews too, all in different ways but all emphasizing that they do it nonetheless, this is besides the point though. Tourskin (talk) 00:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, if you know anything about the Arab developments militarily, please add them in. Tourskin (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what your point is; everyone, even Monotheistic religions who worship one God piously will find it humiliating to bow down to someone other than God. You know what this isn't worth arguing so I'll leave it. Tourskin (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Khutba
Thank you very much for extensively expanding the content on such an important Islam-related article as khutba and then nominating it for DYK. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing comes to mind that is small or in dire need of expansion. I'm excited you chose to work on waqf though. Good luck! --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop it
Hey Blesssins, stop your unwarranted accusations. There is no vote involved, hence no "votestacking". In fact, when you used the RfC to reinsert (in an unashameldy POV way) your Dtn claims you consciously ignored the fact that other editors (not just me) had opposed this. I informed them and I see no crime involved. Furthermore, you have authority to issue such warnings. Please desist from doing so in the future. Str1977 (talk) 08:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously the section was not about Deuteronomy, and it was by definition "votestacking" --Be happy!! (talk) 09:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Str, why wouldn't you want to get all of the regular contributors involved in making a decision, as opposed to notifying only those on one side of the dispute? To claim it's not "votestacking" because there's no "vote" is wikilawyering in my opinion; it was still canvassing. ITAQALLAH   20:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Globetrottin'
NASA World Wind. ViperSnake151 11:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Multi-state solution
Hi Bless sins. Basically I believe that pretty much the only way to achieve peace is for every ethnic group to have its own, independent homeland. As such, I think the map of the western Middle East (including Lebanon, Syria, Israel and Jordan at the very least) needs to be completely redrawn so there is a Jewish state, a Druze state, a Christian state, a Kurdish state, an Assyrian state, a Sunni state and a Shia state etc etc. As we can see in Israel and Lebanon, Christians, Jews and Muslims can't live together peacefully, and even if they could, I think it's better for each to have their own state to mould to their own culture. пﮟოьεԻ  5  7  08:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * TBH I would hope that one day the UN would be a federation along the lines of the EU, though obviously any dictatorship would not be allowed entry. The Druze do have minor conflicts from time to time (I seem to recall rioting in a joint Druze-Christian Arab town in the north of Israel in recent years), and regarding the Assyrians, ideally their country would be large enough to accomodate the entire diaspora (I also have some pretty radical ideas about "house swaps" to achieve homogenous and contiguous states (for instance the only long-term solution I can see for Northern Ireland is to split it in half and have some form of mass migration of each group into each half). Unrealistic I know, but it's still something I believe in. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  17:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Assalamualaykum
Just noticed a welcome message from you. Felt nice. JazakAllah :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elazeez (talk • contribs) 06:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

GA nomination:Battle of the Trench
Salam Alaykum

I want to nominate the article. What's your view?

DYK nom of Islam: The Straight Path
Hi - there is an issue with this nomination which you may want to address. The hook is the opinion of a Giselia Webb, from her own work - I don't think that is acceptable as a "fact." Please leave any comment at the nomination. Vishnava  talk  15:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This paragraph needs a citation in the first sentence, which is part of the hook. There is just one citation in the whole para. I've okayed the hook, but someone else could comment on it further. Vishnava  talk  16:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Better safe than sorry - it must be made clear for all readers, so an extra cite is preferred at the pertinent point. Anyway, should be cool now, Vishnava  talk  17:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)
The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources of Islamic law
Salam Alaykum

The article has some problem from technical viewpoint. Unfortunately these problems are not minor ones such as including Ijtihad as a source in the lead and Preference in the body. These are not sources but they are procedure. I want to add expert tag on the article.-- Seyyed(t-c) 02:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have taken this article to Good Article Reassessment as my concerns have not been addressed, and the article does not currently meet GA standards. Sorry, not sure what's happened here procedure-wise. You can view and contribute to the reassessment here . Regards, Somno (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * God willing, we will try to improve it and reach GA criteria, but it's a difficult work. Thus I suggest to work on one of these articles which are close to GA status:Kaaba, Hajj, Battle of Khaybar, Ali, Islamism, Itmam al-hujjah, al-Kindi or Alhazen.-- Seyyed(t-c) 14:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your complaint
Sorry, if you thought I was impolite. I didn't say you were violating wiki rules, I said you were making my life miserable, which you are. I am already discussing the issues with you on the talk pages.

You have been following me around deleting my edits in what I consider an overly strict interpetation of wikipeida regulations, or wikilawyering. That is either censorship or very close to it. We will see if others agree in the RfC. Have a nice day :-) --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

'Abd el'Azeez: Walaykumassalaam WaRahmatullaahi WaBarakaatahu
JazakAllah for the motivation my respectable brother in Islam. Yes I've just come in a few months ago and InshaAllah I'll keep striving for excellence in my articles about Islam. Hey, I've seen some of your contributions to this wiki and MashaAllah they are all good. Do keep up the good work and also try to remember me in your prayers InshaAllah. Wassalaam &#39;Abd el &#39;Azeez (talk) 11:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahl al-Bayt‎
Salam, We have some problems in this article. Itaqallah's edition and my responses aren't friendly and it may lead to more problems. Can you please help us with the problem. Thanks.-- Seyyed(t-c) 15:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on Banu Qurayza
Please stop edit warring on this article; you've been asked multiple times to discuss or try editing what someone writes, especially in cases where your revert would re-introduce errors. Reverting is not an editing tool; it should only be used in cases of vandalism or other things that need to be removed immediately like BLP violations. Discussion seems to be going well on the talk page; please continue using that to work out the problems you have with the article. Shell   babelfish 00:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on Eastern Christianity
Please come back now to the Eastern Christianity article (it has been 4 months) and post on the talkpage what in the article is in dispute. It appears that you are using the dispute tag to be disruptive and frustate. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Re. Sources (Count Iblis)
Conflict of interest prohibits me from contributing to the Count Iblis article :)  Count Iblis (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)