User talk:AAA765/Archive 2

Apostasy in Islam
Hi, Aminz,

I'll take another look at Apostasy in Islam tonight and see if there isn't some way to keep your text while solving Jibran and Pecher's objections. Since it's not contested (is it?) that it's good data, and it's squarely on-topic, the only question should be where and how it should it appear in the article.Timothy Usher 20:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Speaking only for myself: it strikes to me that one of Pecher's goals (besides contributing easrnestly and with accuracy which you both share) is to prevent unpleasant truths from being swept under the rug by editors who are either motivated by piety, an unwillingness to look truth in the face or the goal of hiding possibly negative information from others. There are certainly editors who proceed in this way.  In this respect, he's doing WP (and the world) a great service.  However, I think him somewhat too quick to assume that this is where other editors are coming from, and I'd agree with you that he can be over-zealous in this regard.  Re dealings between the two of you, it seems you feel his underlying motive to be attacking your religion and background, and react accordingly.  When you do, he sees you as one who would sweep things under the rug, and a revert war has begun.


 * I'll propose a compromise on the talk page shortly.Timothy Usher 01:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Aminz
You didn't have to do that...although of course I was hoping that someone would!Timothy Usher 08:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Nabiyyin, Anbiya
I think the Qur'anic verse uses nabiyyin rather than anbiya. Am I right? What is the difference? --Aminz 08:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

actually, you're right about the Quran. And that's why there's so much on the web about what it means: it's not really clear, meaning the 'seal of the prophet', not prophets, which would be anbiya. But this latter is the term that scores of Muslims have used with me (when talking in Arabic): I'd never heard the one with nabi(yyin). But it certainly is out there. I guess that when speaking Arabic people use a term which is clearer, even if it's not a direct quote. When speaking another language, using an unclear Arabic term is less of a problem. --Drmaik 21:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * But Qur'an uses "nabiyyin" in other places to mean the "prophets" (va en akhaza allah misagha al-nabiyyin...) nabiyyin is not singular. --Aminz 21:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you give me the reference there. I'm guessing you're representing something like 'wa in akhadha allah mithaqa al-nabiyyin", which would mean something like 'and if God took the covenant of the prophet', but I can't find the reference. --Drmaik 06:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It appears in for example 3:81; 3:80. The translation reads:
 * "Behold! Allah took the covenant of the prophets, saying: "I give you a Book and Wisdom; then comes to you an apostle, confirming what is with you; do ye believe in him and render him help." Allah said: "Do ye agree, and take this my Covenant as binding on you?" They said: "We agree." He said: "Then bear witness, and I am with you among the witnesses." --Aminz 06:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The problem comes from writing Arabic in Roman: I checked the verse in Arabic, and sure enough, you're right, I'm wrong. It should have a long vowel (two ya's at the end, followed by nun), which hasn't been represented. Arabs call him khatam al-anbiya (I've been able to double check that today), but there seem to be 2 plurals for nabi: at least I've learnt something, and thank you for pointing out my error politely. --Drmaik 23:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Amin,

About your request: I can understand why you want concrete citation from a publication, but unfortunately most of what I have written has been obtained directly from scholars' duroos(I study under traditional scholars besides being a comp.science major), and as such I cannot provide exact instances for which links may be provided. I do not believe citation is particularly valuable in the part I added due to the rather mainstream acceptance of this ideology in dealing with "criticism" from non-muslims concerning the religion of Islam itself.

Good work on the page.

Arsath Here
for the info you requested visit Morality of Bible section that I created.. My reference for this was www.answering-christianity.com/ tell me whats wrong with it. Mystic 06:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

In case you're wondering
My interest in Christianity is, I was alerted to this page when a "new" anon user warned Tom harrison about 3RR - suspicious - and when I looked at the history, there is one user with a whole bunch of sockpuppets performing around nine reverts/day. My issue here is more with the sockpuppetry than with the content.

Although now it's looking like talk page flooding, wouldn't you say? I've not seen anyone do this vs. Islam (a list of casualties?), and if we did, we could safely conclude it off-topic (unless the article were entitled "Atrocities of Islam" or the like?)

Islam is much more relevant to current events, and to Middle Eastern politics, another of my interests, and again very relevant to the world.

Incidentally, I agree with Arsath/Mystic's points above. It just goes to show that we are doomed if we give up our own God-given moral judgement in favor of someone else's moral failure, simply because the latter was written down a long time ago. It must be seen as a conversation. I do *not* follow atheists in dismissing the whole endeavor as a sham. Rather, it is like scholarship, to be seriously and skeptically engaged, with due but not undue respect for precedent. Fundamentalists say, change nothing (even when they're changing things). Atheists say, throw out all this good work. Neither is a reasonable approach to knowledge. Timothy Usher 09:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The anti-text submarine is hard at work - take a look. It's not all one-way. There's a lot of irrelevant preaching in this article.Timothy Usher 10:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I've not responded - for some reason I'm simply exhausted, even at this relatively early hour. By anti-text submarine, a phrase I coined just the other day, I only meant I am roaming the WP oceans looking for superfluous text to sink.Timothy Usher 07:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Tireless contributor award
Dude! If it's anyone, its YOU who deserves the award for your efforts on the Criticism of Islam and Apostasy in Islam article! You do an amazing job with those articles, and are very professional in maintaining neutrality.. good job bro!! Nonetheless, I am humbled for the award that you have given me and its given me all the more motivation to try to contribute as much as possible to Wikipedia's content. Thank you! --Jibran1 22:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Deserving it
I can't say he didn't deserve it, but "never taunt a man save when he is stronger than you: then, as you please." Besides, if you feed him he'll keep coming back. Tom Harrison Talk 00:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reverting my user page from MOU sockpuppet vandalism!Timothy Usher 00:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Jazakallah khairan; thanks for the barnstar. It makes staying up until 4:30am and fajr worth it. joturn e r 08:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Jazakallah khairan too; thank you very much. :) It makes me want to work even harder. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 19:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is a policy that says you must discuss but it is accepted that you should, and recommended on controversial pages to avoid this. If the edits are controversial and the editor refuses to discuss, it can be considered vandalism.

Thanks
Jazakallah khairan; thanks a lot for the barnstar, Now I am all pumped up to work. I admit I hava a lot to learn, this is motivating, thanks for your encouragement. Mystic 09:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Qur'an templates created
Hey Aminz, check it out:

009:010

009:010-015

So we have four display options now. Waiting for feedback from Tom harrison on naming conventions, though, so don't use them yet. But when we have the green light, these should prove pretty useful.Timothy Usher 03:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Apostasy in Islam
I've just noticed that you have already reverted 3 times on that article. Please refrain from more reverts to avoid being blocked. Pecher Talk 09:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Your hypocrisy is astonishing: you revert my edits within minutes, but you nevertheless "hope" that I will not revert you, while you cannot revert me. Looks like you believe it is fair play only when the game is to your advantage. Pecher Talk 13:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Buhari Template
Check this out..

Suggestions welcome!! «₪Mÿš†íc₪» 21:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Al-Ahbash
This page is hopeless. These guys evidently hate one another. There is no sign of rational, fair, collaborative behavior.Timothy Usher 03:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've unwatched it. All yours. I must get these people out of my head.Timothy Usher 04:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Islamic scripture template news
1) Template:Quran-usc has been altered in two respects:
 * a) it’s no longer required to input three digits - this is automated thanks to joturner.
 * b) the template no longer includes “Qur’an” in the bluelighted display. Editor may choose to write it or not (or “Sura”, or “verse”, etc.) according to context.
 * c) thus the “-num” variants are redundant and should not be used.

2) The “range display” problem is still not solved - more information coming soon.

3) Template:Bukhari-usc is operative, with three variables (volume, book, hadith), and automated tridigitation as per Quran-usc.

4) Template:Quran-usc-num, Template:Quran-usc-numrange and Template:Buhari are defunct and should be deleted.Timothy Usher 07:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thank joturner, too! He solved the annoying zero problem. It's now okay to freely use the basic Qur'an and Bukhari templates. These won't change. Hold off, though, where we have ranges.

Muwatta coming soon...Timothy Usher 08:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Tom made the original Qur'an template, as you know. I created the four options. Joturner said we didn't need four, we talked it over and mutually decided to toss the two with "Qur'an" in the display. Joturner solved the zero problem with Template:three digit and I added his solution to the templates. I went around to all the articles in which it appeared (excepting talk pages) and changed it manually, to make sure zeros weren't there and that Qur'an was written where appropriate. Arsath made a Buhari template. I made a Bukhari-usc template that pointed us to the right verse, and incorporating joturners zero fix. I think Arsath has a new version of Buhari now, with the full language, "Sahih Bukhari volume X, book Y, verse Z", whereas my Bukhari-usc template displays just X:Y:Z. That's the whole story.Timothy Usher 08:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the barnstar. My contribution was just to copy the Bible-verse template. Timothy Usher worked a lot on it, Joturner added some clever stuff, others fixed and extended, and progress continues. It's gratifying to see the wiki system working so well. Best wishes, Tom Harrison Talk 12:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because
your first name is Amin. That is why you are obsessed with this. Arsath, I don't know. Perhaps his name is also Amin? I'm out of rv's for an hour or so - actually I'm out for about ten hours, but as I'll be asleep...I can't believe you guys made me go to three. This is not my way...Timothy Usher 08:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I too was joking, except about the three revert part.Timothy Usher 08:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

More Hadith Templates

 * Template:Abudawud -
 * Template:Muslim -
 * Template:Muslim-usc -
 * Template:Bukhari -

I created all these templates. If you want a shorter version of the Bukhari template use Template:Bukhari-usc created by Timothy. If there are issues please feel free to fix them and remember to put a note on the talk page thanks «₪Mÿš†íc₪» 09:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

As a friend
Hi, as your friend I just wanted to let you know, you've done your third rv:)Timothy Usher 09:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Your edits I suppose made things not quite as bad - I liked the fact tag - but it would still be far better if we could be specific as per Zora's proposed version.Timothy Usher 09:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, Aminz! How come nobody else gives me barnstars?Timothy Usher 09:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Your cite is an improvement. Look at what's being said here; his nickname is hardly the main point. If one had to sum it up in a few words, it's, "Muhammad helped repair the Kaaba," as per Zora.Timothy Usher 10:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, to all but the most credulous, it's post-facto myth, but I've no doubt you can source it. Just keep it particular, and present it neutrally. It's at least an interesting legend.Timothy Usher 10:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll check it out it a bit, thanks!Timothy Usher 21:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Your links
http://www.shia.org/ProphetMuhammad.html

Was he also called “the chosen one” and “the messenger” as a youth? Similarly with the book. No number of links of this sort can prove that he was called that before he began preaching, and Lord knows the Meccans weren’t calling him that once he’d begun. All it does is show what we already knew, that Muslims call him this now.

All the “Revelation” says is, “Among his people he had already earned the name Al-Amin, The Trustworthy.” I didn’t say I’d never *heard* this, only that I’d never heard it *substantiated*, and I still haven’t.

Have I overlooked something?Timothy Usher 02:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Aminz
SORRY for being so late to thank you for the Barnstar Thanks mate.. I am stuck with assignments from uni and work from office «₪Mÿš†íc₪» 18:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Once Again
Thanks for the second barnstar in a week. Sorry for taking so long to respond; I didn't realize you put it at the top of my talk page instead of the bottom. joturn e r 21:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure?
I am not on 3RR, and would not allow myself to be given Anonymous editor's record of transparently unfair decisions in this regard (re Netscott). Please provide the diffs though, in case I'm mistaken.

Can't believe you gave him a barnstar - for what, freezing McKhan's anti-Habashi screed? For freezing MOU's sock-puppet version of Islamism? Every administrative action I've seen on his part has been wrongly decided, all cutting in the same direction, and he has barely any presence on the talk pages, and edits from above, reverting changes he doesn't like without explanation. That's what I've seen so far, at least.Timothy Usher 04:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's the diff - note that User:Hotdamndiggity is an admitted and established sockpuppet of User:MuslimsofUmreka, as I'd stated at the time.  Beyond that, note that the narrative reified by AE's page lock makes not a lick of sense.Timothy Usher 10:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Seriously? First Netscott violated the 3rr, I didn't, and I was not the one that blocked him so I don't see what I have to do with it. Same thing with Al Abash. Aminz asked for the page to be frozen because of the reverting. I am not allowed to pick which version I like before freezing it. Same with the Islamism page, it's not my duty to figure out who the sockpuppet is or which version I like. So please learn about the what exactly editing on wikipedia is before accusing editors that have edited a lot more than you. Aminz must have been in a very good mood to give you one, you obviously need to learn a lot more. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 23:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "Aminz must have been in a very good mood to give you one" - Aminz had miscounted. In the same spirit of generosity, and not miscounting, you are at 3RR on Qur'an.


 * Perhaps it is, as you suggest, merely the luck of the draw that every decision (and edit) I've seen from you thus far has cut the same way; if so, please accept my apologies for not having allowed you the benefit of the doubt.Timothy Usher 23:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please!! I have never gave any barnstar to anybody without reason. I believe both Anonymous Editor and Timothy are excellent wikipedians. Please! --Aminz 23:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As to the "freezing McKhan's anti-Habashi screed" If someone is gulity for The Al Ahbash article, it is me. See, at that time the talk page was free from any constructive discussion. I know you are not happy with what is currently going on the talk page but I believe we have a better conversation now and will get into consensus. Locking the article at least helped people engage more in discussion. Moreover, I thought the table not that POV in the first brief look. I consider myself guilty if anyone is. --Aminz 23:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll help you with your Muhammad edit in a bit. The data is fine, though it needs a little reorganization. However, I am too upset about certain reverts on the Qur'an page to deal with it now.Timothy Usher 05:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Qur'an
I think you have reverted more than enough on Qur'an, so it might be a good idea to take a break. Pecher Talk 08:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Proper language
That's fine, Aminz. I'm a little upset, too. Wikistress is part of the package, I'm afraid. As always, stop by my talk page anytime.Timothy Usher 09:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The vast majority of my recent edits have been adding links to Islamic scripture, including on Sura articles which haven't been touched in months. I'm about a fifth of the way through these...Timothy Usher 09:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Well, by all means, add it!Timothy Usher 09:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Allah=Yahweh?
Just want to be clear on this... When Jews refer to Yahweh they are actually referring to Allah? Netscott 06:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter, I've clarified what your edit means. My beliefs are founded upon the governing principals of secularity. Netscott 06:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Will it be enough if I show a quote from Maimonides? --Aminz 06:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, Are you a jew? I don't think so, because you don't know Maimonides. --Aminz 06:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at: http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9902/novak.html --Aminz 06:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

See this: http://www.askmoses.com/qa_detail.html?h=255&o=2400

Jews can enter mosques but not churchs. --Aminz 06:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Glad that we could come to an amicable agreement. Netscott
 * Yes, we both compromised... that's good Wikipedian conduct. Netscott 07:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Aminz, please stop replacing all references to Allah with God. Netscott 07:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I wholeheartedly concur with what Aminz is doing. Allah < al-ilah "the god"; i.e., God as opposed to [a] god.  It's as exact a translation as one could ever expect.  Aminz is merely bringing these articles into compliance with the English language, the language these articles are supposed to be in.Timothy Usher 07:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not concur, English speakers know what the term Allah refers to. I contend that for the average English speaker the term God sooner refers to the Christian concept of God. Netscott 07:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * How do you hold the meanings of "God" and "Allah" to differ? Keep in mind, too, that Arabic language Bibles use Allah for God, with no associated controversy.Timothy Usher 08:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly! The fact that English speakers know the meaning of the word "Allah" does not prove we should use the arabic word. --Aminz 08:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Aminz, I will be extremely hesitant to trust you in the future when you demonstrate your lack of good faith. And I actually had higher respect for you. Netscott 08:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Aminz, but now I am very inclined to think that your original edits were not in good faith. You explained to me why I should get 'that impression'. Perhaps English is not a first language for you but I did not 'get an impression' I saw the truth. The wording of your apology gives me the impression that you are not sincere in giving it. Netscott 08:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your clarified apology, I accept it. You may want to see Jeremy's talk page to better understand my logic for Allah/God. Thanks again. Netscott 09:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That was normal for me to do that (in fact I actually would prefer to do that to all of the articles you've edited on since) based upon the bad faith you demonstrated after the Allah/God question was seemingly settled. I honestly think that the name Allah should be included more frequently as opposed to less so that people can become more accustomed to what that name truly represents rather than have the false prejudices that hiding that name tends to further. To me reducing instances of the use of Allah would tend to denote shame and embarassment about it which imho is very wrong. Netscott 09:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually it would make an excellent demonstration of good faith on your part if you were to self-revert your own edits to before you touched any article relative to the Allah/God changes. Netscott 09:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Once your bad faith was evident (which don't forget you've apologized for) I then proceeded to just revert your edits outright. Afterwards, I did not break any compromise but I merely reverted in good faith to versions I believed to be correct. Netscott 09:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I was editing in Good faith. The only exception was breaking my compromise which happened after you broke the compromise first in action. --Aminz 09:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You broke the compromise at 7:51 and I broke it at 8:14. You were the first to break the compromise. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJeremygbyrne&diff=50711520&oldid=50403179 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_warrior&diff=next&oldid=50709869 --Aminz 09:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Aminz, I'm losing more and more faith in you. Look at the edit you did at 7:21, notice anything funny? Our Allah/God issue was supposedly settled at 7:06. I totally doubt your apology again. Please show good faith and self-revert all edits you've made to versions prior to you editing from Allah to God. Netscott 09:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Aminz, you're just digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole. If you truly believed in the accord we supposedly reached on Depictions of Muhammad then you would have continued editing in that fashion on subsequent articles. But since you did not believe in that accord you went back to your normal appearingly bad faith editing. You actually demonstrated your bad faith twice. Once by returning to the straight Allah->God editing you were doing prior to our conflict and twice by saying that you didn't want to make such edits on User:Jeremygbyrne's talk page and you were only doing so temporarily. Why are you trying to explain away your nonsense? Admit your baith faith editing fully and self revert in good faith every article you touched! Netscott 09:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine, then until you admit what you know is true, you will never have the respect I initially accorded you and you can be sure that through me others will come to know of your less than good faith nature. Netscott 09:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely nothing to admit and you know it now that I've explained why. Please note that I am already spreading word that I believe you to be a less than honorable editor. Netscott 10:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR nonsense
You are wrong, not all of my edits are reverts. Netscott 07:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

God/Allah
No? Then why did you say you were OK with it here? &#0151; JEREMY 08:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I hadn't realised you were the one who started the changes; I thought Netscott had kicked it off on his own. Hmm... It is a somewhat provocative move, although I respect your reasoning. Perhaps if you waited until there was a legitimate reason to change an article, it might go over better. (I personally prefer to use " God ", which provides the inquisitive reader with specific information without making the claim that there's a difference.) Otherwise, this is something likely to end in mediation, I imagine. &#0151; JEREMY 08:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I sooner see the God edit as deceptive and would sooner edit a given article to reduce such deception. Netscott 08:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "Deceptive"?! Sheesh; I give up. Do what you want. &#0151; JEREMY 08:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that God is a deceptive edit, deliberately or not. This kind of thing is all too frequent on Islam-related pages.


 * The underlying problem is the POV forked articles, which force us to decide between the forks. It's a problem everywhere it comes up.  The solution is to change such edits to God, under which there is a section for and a link to the Islamic concept of God.  It is very wrongheaded to assert that Muslim readers ought be able to navigate through shared Abrahamic concepts without ever confronting non-Muslim POVs, as is increasingly the case thanks to the growing number of Arabic-titled forks.


 * There is one case where Allah is warranted, and this is: "The Arabic term for God is Allah", and permutations thereof. God is never warranted, except as an awkward and unintended artifact of the POV forks.  Timothy Usher 08:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Further, merging the articles at least where links are concerned will direct Muslim editors to the English-titled pages, where they will hopefully removed unnoted POV.


 * The intros to Abrahamic articles ought be utterly neutral re all major Abrahamic religions. From there, we should proceed from Jewish to Christian to Islamic views, as per chronological order.  Where daughter articles are needed, so they are, but links must be to the main article except where the argument for doing otherwise is very compelling.


 * That's my proposal.Timothy Usher 09:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds Good to me! Thanks for the proposal! Let's see where this project will go. --Aminz 09:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. However, where this is a direct quote from a translator, we cannot change it without compromising the integrity of citation.  I'm sure you can appreciate this.  It is as if someone wrote "Muhammadan" and we changed it to "Muslim".  Of course, the latter is correct, but a quote is a quote.  It has no impact on the broader discussion.Timothy Usher 09:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand. You are right. I am now trying to clear up myself from Netscott's accusations. I did wrong once, I admit ,but I believe it was just once. --Aminz 09:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Mozart's Requiem Mass
You should listen to this if you haven't already - one of the most terrifying pieces of music ever composed.

Kyrie eleison - "Lord have mercy" (Greek)

Confutatis maledictis - "damned are the wicked" (Latin)

Must hear to appreciate!Timothy Usher 10:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Veneration of Muhammad
Aminz, you put a "Totally disputed" tag on it, but you didn't put anything on the talk page about why you had done so. What is WRONG with the folklore section? Surely you know that not all scholars accept all stories about Muhammad, and that many stories shade off into pure folklore, that may be believed by villagers, not scholars.

Any religion has its folklore. There's lots and lots of Christian folklore. I'm not all that conversant with Buddhist folklore, since I belong to a group that's new to the US, no folkloric traditions yet, and most of us tend to have BAs or higher. But there is lots of folklore in Asia. Zora 05:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Vandalism on Muhammad
Jeez, if it ain't Vkasdg or Raphael1, it's a damned robot. I just left another template message on the bot's talk page (as he'd erased it), and one on his user talk page as well.Timothy Usher 06:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Falsehood on Muslim
Wish I'd caught this:

Thanks.Timothy Usher 08:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Gabriel
Now that I'm concentrating on this article, I see that the intro doesn't sufficiently account for Muslim POV. Beyond keeping non-Muslim editors away from the Halal articles, the gratuitous forks direct Muslim editors away from the main "Judeo-Christian" (as it seems there are not many disputes here) articles. This should change. Both articles need more traffic.Timothy Usher 09:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Re veneration of Arabic words, it's no different than the idea that Hebrew was God's (and history's) original language: transparent ethnic chauvenism, which thanks to a history of conquest, others (e.g. Persians) have internalized. Which is fine, but it's not God's doing. It's ridiculous to suppose that God prefers Arabic, a mere dialect of Proto-Semitic, to any other language.Timothy Usher 09:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem strange to me - people do think this way - just irrational.Timothy Usher 10:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for what?
Yea I'm sorry but I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to on my talk page. Do you think you could specify?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot on Muhammad
Hi Aminz. FYI, OrphanBot's edits are not vandalism. The edit you reverted was the bot commenting out an image which hasn't been tagged properly, and that will be deleted tomorrow if that information is not provided. ~MDD4696 16:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Med page
Not necessary for now. Won't solve anything in the issue and is a long process. Moving and redirecting pages like that is very serious and by itself is an offence to policy. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 00:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Discussion is continuing is several places and this is a very large issue not just between a few editors. Btw I hope you understand my reasons. The proper names are used for important figures even if they are considered just another perspective by another religion. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 00:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's why it's always made clear in the introduction. We don't need to rename them just because they exist in another religion too. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 01:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course I understand that, I was brought up Protestant. But that issue should be dealt in article content and not in the name. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 01:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes but that all is easily done in the introduction and it's usually people who wouldn't know anyways that do that. If we clearly say that it's the same person then people will understand. There are many articles based on different language names. And yes, you can talk about this later too.-- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 01:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"Moving and redirecting pages like that is very serious and by itself is an offence to policy."

Translation: refuses mediation, threatens to ban me over content dispute.Timothy Usher 04:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Aminz. I must reserve comment for now, lest I say something I'll regret. But thank you, for giving it real thought, and for having the balls to stick up for me when I'm under attack.Timothy Usher 05:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It's very important, and it's obvious that many editors simply won't trust any judgement of a non-Muslim.

In the meantime, might you take a look at Allah, "my" version (heaven knows there is much which still needs improvement) in the diffs, and AE's version, and tell me which you think better? If you think mine an improvement, please revert to it. It's your right to do so, if you agree.

In the meantime, it is futile to make any more improvements to articles, as AE is following me around and reverting all my changes wholesale.

According to his recent posts, it is my problem if Qur'anic quotes are unlinked, pointing to the wrong verse or otherwise inaccurate. It is my problem whether the sentences make sense, whether narratives are coherent, whether paragraphs consist of dozens of unrelated clauses joined at random, etc.

Shame about the readers, shame about Qur'an and Hadith, shame about the articles, shame about wikipedia. All my problem.

And it's my responsibility to make these changes again and again while he edit wars from above, while he has no responsibility to read the article, or to look up terms such as "etymology" in the dictionary before deciding what material belongs in a section with this title.

His responsibility, so he'd have it, is to take a few minutes out of his day to revert my improvements wholesale, and to threaten to have me blocked for them.Timothy Usher 05:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It's been a long day for me...I'll look tomorrow, promise. Thanks for your involvement.Timothy Usher 08:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Self-revert on what? If I broke the rules, I'm not aware of it. Please let me know ASAP so I can self-revert.Timothy Usher 09:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

AE and I are both on two; sad that it's even gone this far. I, at least, am always available on talk. I see no reason why his reverts should be considered any more sacred than mine. He suggests that because he's an admin, I have to relent in the face of his careless (not bothering to distinguish between uncontroversial and disputed improvements) reverts.

I've held back on restoring the redirects, as per his threats. However, I've yet to see any substantiation of the rule he says prevents translating Arabic-language article titles into English. I'll give him a bit to inform me before I start restoring the English-language title.Timothy Usher 09:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I said it is blockable to move pages around arbitrarily, as is blanking articles and redirecting them without agreement. I never said I would block you either, assuming that is going pretty far. Many editors have done it before. Stop assuming bad faith and take it as a friendly warning. And please get rid of your belief that no one edited the articles before you and that all your edits are making it better. Saying that your changes should be kept because they are the best thing that ever happened to wikipedia is pov. That's ignorant of all the editors that have been editing this for years and have worked on it longer than you. And I'm warning you again that arbitrary actions are not to work on Wikipedia. Otherwise everyone could go an redirect to whatever they wanted, move pages, etc. -- a.n.o.n.y.m   t 02:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Though I've asked several times, you've offered me no evidence that your warnings are based on policy. And, as explained on Talk:Jesus in Islam, it is an abuse of the English language to declare my redirect "arbitrary."Timothy Usher 04:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If you are denying that they were arbitrary then you have to learn what the word means. You changed the article with over 20 to 30 edits including a page move and all the name changes when you were involved and knew about the disagreement on the talk page. If you made 20 to 30 changes all of a sudden, move a page, and completely ignore discussion on the talk page where people disagree with you, would that not be arbitrary? This is not allowed in wikipedia and I was politely warning you. You were lucky that I warned you before you did it anymore. And you did the same thing on Jibril and even called it rule-breaking. You knew you were breaking the rules. If I do that same thing and move pages around then you wouldn't call it arbitrary? -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 04:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * “And you did the same thing on Jibril and even called it rule-breaking.” -Please check the history.  The only editors on the talk page - the second and third respectively - were Aminz and I.
 * “You were lucky that I warned you before you did it anymore.” - That was very generous of you.  It would be still more generous if you could direct me to the policy to which you refer.
 * “And you did the same thing on Jibril and even called it rule-breaking.” - Might you provide a diff? Thanks.Timothy Usher 04:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Can't believe how many excuses you are making up for clearly arbitrary actions. Here's rule-breaking . And Timothy this really is your only warning. Editors are blocked for moving pages arbitrarily and blanking pages every day. I am sure if I ignored discussion and did the same thing, you'll see how arbitrary the actions are. -- a.n.o.n.y.m   t 05:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Editors are blocked for page moves and blanking when they are vandalism, which doesn't apply here.


 * As wikipedia provides instructions for redirects (which I followed), as as several of these pages have been thusly redirected in the past, redirection is clearly not prohibited. Perhaps there's some other policy you might be thinking of?


 * As the history shows very clearly - and as I'm sure you knew - the "rule" referred to in this diff was the redirect protocols, which don't allow redirects to sections, only to articles. I included the section syntax in case section redirects were ever enabled (as they ought to be).  Anything else you'd like to discuss?Timothy Usher 05:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty silly excuse Timothy, but I'll assume good faith. However your actions on Isa don't need any discussion. Moving a page, changing all the names, and editing it several times despite discussion is clearly arbitrary and will never result in any of your edits being taken any more seriously -not that they are currently- and I don't know why you're denying it. Should I do the same thing? Would that not be arbitrary? -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 05:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)