User talk:Adamrce/Archive 3

Final Testament
I agree to your usage of the word "Final Testament" applying to the Quran on the Islam and Quran articles. But the sentence structure is quite abrupt. Could we make it something like this:

"consider the Qur'an to be both the unaltered and the final revelation of God (i.e.- the Final Testament after the Old and New Testaments) "

not sure but it could be made better... Shaad lko (talk) 06:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with your concern, while a similar discussion was made before (somewhere :p) about messenger: Many westerns don't consider it anything important/abnormal. I only disagree with "i.e." in your suggestions, as many sources really say "Final Testament". Also, readers will just consider it an inserted (not really important) term when using "i.e."
 * My only concern here is about it's general acceptance. Do you think that "(the Final Testament, after the Old and New Testaments)" would be acceptable? Thanks...     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  07:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, without the i.e. looks fine enough too. Though I see that your last edit has just been reverted on the Islam page.. ~Shaad lko (talk) 08:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. I've had a crazy week. Yes, William was concerned about its grammatical form, as you said too. What do you think of (the Final Testament, following the Old and New Testaments) [and a link p.12]? Please correct me if you have another opinion or an alternative diction, to go ahead and change them... [[User:adamrce|    ~ AdvertAdam  ]] talk  06:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that sounds reasonable.. it can be done the same way on both pages (Quran and Islam) Shaad lko (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for the help     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  10:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I made some comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#A_belief_of_Testament_sequence that may be of interest. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That was really cheerful.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  08:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

RCP proposal
Adamrce, Anna_Frodesiak, Baseball_Bugs, Csloomis, Cntras, Evaders99, Fæ, Shrike, Qwyrxian, WWGB, Who.was.phone: met you guys at edit conflicts for undoing vandalism/ warning the same vandals/reporting at AIV. I've made a proposal at Village_pump_(proposals). This is regarding managing vandalism at RCP. What do you think?Staticd (talk) 11:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Yahweh
Someone enlighten me - what's the difference between "God in the bible" and "Biblical god"? (though the first is perhaps better English). PiCo (talk) 10:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I just scratched something that I was just gonna type (trying to assume good faith on the mass-revert, not by you). Some editors consider "God in the Bible" similar to a fact statement, which consider the second more neutral. I'm not convinced, as the Bible is a belief afterall, but I don't wanna fight on a silly matter.
 * I, personally, find "God in Judaism"/"God in Christianity"/"God in Islam" more appropriate. Especialy in Abrahamic faith, to avoid misunderstanding that we're talking about different gods like polytheism. Egyptian god, persian god, Bal god, Moon god...etc.
 * If you have guts to talk, I'll open a sec for it :p     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  11:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't mind a discussion, but I honestly can't see a difference, except that "God in the bible" sounds better - which isn't much of an argument. My understanding of this subject is that the ancient Israelites (before, say, about 600 BCE) believed there were plenty of gods, all of them with names, and their own God (the god of Israel) was called Yahweh. Later (by 500 BCE) they became montheists, and believed that Yahweh was the only god in the world - but his name was still Yahweh, and it was so holy it couldn't be spoken. Then much later came religions like Christianity and Islam, which are monotheistic but don;'t believe God has any name at all - he's just God. What's your view? PiCo (talk) 11:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (By the way, don't get excited by all the deletions I've done - I'm just feeling a little hyper). PiCo (talk) 11:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree about your point that it sounds better. But my point is still that the current phrasing suggest that the Jewish God is not the Christian God and not the Muslim God. All three follow the same prophetical sequence, believing in the same God with some different views. Jews stopped with Isaiah, Christians with Jesus, and Muslims with Muhammad. There's sources for all this.
 * There's different views from scholars, and they're all easy to source, reliably. I've been through this crap a lot :P.
 * Don't forget that monotheism started from Abraham, as history, but Adam as a belief. The main problem is the loss-of-teachings and scriptures during generations. When reading the origin scripture's language, it's obvious that the other gods weren't considered real. It was just teachings that tell people to not follow those gods that were made by human...etc. Stories never end, but the belief haven't changed. They all still acknowledge the existence of other gods, but deny that they have any ownership/authority.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  11:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I know that your point is sincere, but I just can't feel it - to me, there's no difference between these two forms of words. You say that the current wording suggests that the Jewish God isn't the Christian God - that's certainly not the belief of Christians, for whom the entire bible, OT and NT, is one book. I don't know what they might think about the Koran and Allah - probably they think Muslims are mistaken, but I don't know. (Probably they don't think at all - people tend to feel religion, not think it).


 * Thanks for explaining your beliefs to me. My own belief: I'm not religious at all, but unlike some people I'm not anti-religious either. I study religions the way other people might study history, or poetry. It simply interests me, but without me believing anything of it. And I try (mostly) to respect other people's beliefs. And so do you :) PiCo (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Me too. I get annoyed of whom believe blindly, and I don't take belief as an answer (when it's against logic). Mixture with mythologies is what gets things confusing and filling people with unanswered questions, so most of my studies are tracking evidence.
 * I guess I put the wrong example. The best example of Jewish and Christian gods is Abraham's article. It took me forever to fix the "Hebrew God" statement to the "Hebrew name of God". It's not a big deal in this article, but it adds up when it gets to multifaith articles.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  12:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The only thing I can think of for this article, is the general used standard on Wikipedia: God_in_Abrahamic_religions,God_in_Judaism, God_in_Christianity, God_in_Islam, Names_of_God_in_Judaism, Names_of_God_in_Islam.    ~ AdvertAdam   talk  20:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

my edits on Shia page.
Dear admin. As I mentioned on the Shia talk page, I've started cleaning the article. I am just removing materials which are repeated several times in the article. for example, several times it's reported that Iran has millions Shia [1][2]..... Anyway, if you see something necessary, just revert my edit. thanks. --Aliwiki (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. I know the article is a mess, but just wanted to note to be careful with sourced material (I don't care about the unsourced). You're doing great :). I'll keep a brief eye.
 * Btw, I have, and always wear, a nice ring with Ali's sword on both sides. I got it from SA a couple years ago.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  21:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks :).--Aliwiki (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I wonder why you remvoed content from War rape
I am wondering why you removed content from the War rape article, here, the source cited BBC. Didnt you consider BBC reliable, or do you only consider it reliable when it matches your views?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm really not sure when will you stop your continues false accusations, or do you have to be pointed-out by other editors each time.
 * Look at the edit again, and if you see your same view: I'll copy the edit on your talkpage to see it more clearly.
 * It's pathetic to see your claim where I added a space and matched the source, while ignoring the Sri Lanka content I really moved when it sourced the Human Rights Watch (in the same day, and same article). Maybe you're an Islam-articles protector? You should get highly rewarded from the project then :p     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  21:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in that article, and yes. I do see myself as protecting certain articles from being vandalised. What do you think the wikipedia watch feature is for? I only pointed out what you did in the War rape article because you have a history of removing content from Islam related articles (or adding false content), using false edit summaries like you did in the Quranarticle--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't accuse me of vandalism too, I'm scared.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  09:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I "dare and a half" to remove a nonconstructive uncivil comment about myself! If you'd like to discuss an edit of mine, you're highly and friendly welcomed. If you're gonna keep filling my talkpage and articles with false nonsense about me, you're not welcomed at all (and I don't even want to see your signature).
 * For the last and millionth time, accusations aren't welcome anywhere. The next one from you is going straight to a noticeboard, so consider that a last warning. PERIOD. (copied to your talkpage)     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  08:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

@A: you seem to have a very low tolerance for "incivility" directed against you and yet seem quite happy to be incivil to others: your comments above, for exampleWilliam M. Connolley (talk) 10:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Uncivil is not always the opposite of politeness. When I tell someone that his accusations are not welcomed on my talkpage again and again and again, I gotta look for a different behavior if they still didn't get the point.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  11:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Help!
Not to interrupt your other editing but I really would like it if you could help out with edits to the following pages: The prophet pages are being forsaken while they are hugely important; your help would be wonderful! I edited Elijah and Islamic view of Solomon and I think Islamic view of Abraham is finally getting somewhere. Please help!--Imadjafar(talk) 18:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Islamic view of Jacob
 * Dhul-Kifl
 * Islamic view of Moses
 * Islamic view of Mary

Revert only when necessary...
... which means revert vandalism on sight, but revert a good faith edit only as a last resort or, more exactly means DO NOT REVERT at all!!! And, when you remove a navigation template from an article, ALSO REMOVE the link to that article from the template or it will lead us down to a dead-end!!! Thanks. –p joe f (talk • contribs) 18:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the "wikify" thingY, next drive will start next August or September (I hope the latter ~ lol) and you are more than welcome to join us. Please, have a drink on me and sorry if I was too "rude". It was not my intention, but I'm always in a hurry (too many things to do in too little time). –p joe f (talk •contribs) 16:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That is an essay, not policy. It is also clearly wrong, so I've been bold and updated it William M. Connolley (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * REMOVING "something" from an article does not mean REVERTING. I'm not saying that it was wrong to remove the template form the page. We can do it by simply editing a page or a section and NOT by reverting. –p joe f (talk • contribs) 07:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks William, and nice correction     ~ AdvertAdam   talk
 * I don't know what you're talking about! Can you please send me a link, article, ...anything. I don't think I usually revert something without a summary, so please correct me if I'm wrong. Pointing to the article/template would be helpful, and sorry for the inconvenience.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  20:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think I found what you meant, Ghandi? I clearly stated that it's "irrelevant" there.
 * I don't care what's in it, as I never even contributed nor visited the template. I find it kind-of odd that you added the template to two article, then strictly changed your mind right after my revert here and here, summarized "can NOT be placed there".
 * I didn't visited the template because it was newly added, a couple minutes, before my revert. If it was something old, I'd have addition actions. Again, sorry for any convenience.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  20:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * DO NOT REVERT because a revert will be counted as a deleted edit! I think it is better if we edit an article or the corresponding section and do our "job" without reverting (excluding vandalism and etcetera, of course). And, it does NOT mean if you have contributed to a template or not. I think that you (an me) are here on Wikipedia to contribute to the whole "thing", the whole project (Wikipedia). I've not changed my opinion (because I had not an opinion about that, or, more precisely, I have about the same opinion of you). I haven't created that NAVIGATION template nor added links to it (eventually, I have fixed some wlinks). I've just placed that template on all pages listed there, and I think that some of the articles listed on that template are not appropriate for it. That is a NAVIGATION template, and we have to remove both the non-appropriate articles from the template and the template from the non-appropriate articles. But, we can not remove the template from an article without removing the corresponding link from the template itself or we will "produce" a dead-end page for its navigation. Anyway, there is no problem and about the Gandhitemplate, please see its discussion page when you have time and you'll get what I'm saying. Thank you and happy editing (without reverting —if possible). –p joe f (talk • contribs) 07:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen that discussion and I've noticed that wikifying is your most thing here. You're doing a great job, but it's the adder's responsibility to know what it's about (not the removal). You basically just followed the mistake of the person who added the name in the template. It's OK to make a mistake, but it's not OK to blame others of not doing more than fixing your mistake.
 * I arrange my time here based on the articles I edit, and usually don't interfere to more article unless I have enough time to follow them. The template had a "dead-end link" before you added it to the two articles, so I haven't changed anything. I only discuss edits that are controversial. If I didn't revert you, someone else would (very shortly). Again, I apologize for the misunderstanding.    ~ AdvertAdam   talk  07:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, no dear. I'm not blaming you for anything, and there is no need to apologize. I'm just saying that I think (and this is my humble opinion) that it is better to edit a page or a section and fix the problem than to push the "undo button". I know that it is easier to use (and I was an addicted to it too), but maybe it's better (when it is possible) to lose a few more seconds of our so precious time and edit the page/section. About the "mistake", I do not know if it was a mistake or not. I have placed that template on all pages listed on it bacause that is the function and scope of a navbox and also to see where it was necessary to remove it. Final hint (if I can): if it happens that you have to remove another navigation template from a page, then (if you can) also remove the link to the page from that template, so the job is 100% completed.
 * Yep... I know what you mean, but I just wanted to clarify terms/statements :p. Thanks for the beer! It actually got stuck in my mind yesterday, and I'm definitely jumping in the next drive. Thanks for the invitation.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk

Cites in wikilinked articles suffice
Hi. In this edit you added a "citation needed" tag to an assertion about a collection of wikilinks. That assertion is thoroughly supported by cites in each of the several wikilinked articles themselves, and need not be repeated in situ. Please check the wikilinked articles next time, to see if the cites there support the claim made, before tagging. Thanks, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sir, I've asked the inserter on the discussion-section to point which sources he used (from the many). I've added that tag, temporarily, so the debate doesn't get heated more (because of the continues reverts between the two editors). My main intention was to leave it till the debate ends, which I think it did :). Thanks for the info     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  23:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

British airman
Your personal oppinion on the issue doesn't count. The official line of the British government is that he died as part of and in support of operation Ellamy. This source has been provided. Like I already said to another editor, there have been around a hundred non-combat US military deaths in Kuwait in support of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and they have all been declared to be casualties of war by both the media and the US government. This is the same thing here. Removal of sourced information to push a personal point of view is not good faith on your part. So please refrain. EkoGraf (talk) 03:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Bring me a single deff for your false claims! I barely even edit that article... First, you threaten editors, and now making-up accusations  o.O       ~ AdvertAdam   talk  04:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It should be reverted and i stated the reasons why on my talk page, But judging by Eko's record and his talk page he isnt well liked around here anyway and has been proved wrong on several occasions. Goldblooded (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, please don't make up things as you see fit. '''First of the Briton didn't die from wounds sustained in Afghanistan after being airlifted from there. He died from a boating accident while in Cyprus after he had already left the war zone uninjured, and still he was declared a casualty of war. Read the source more carefully.''' My comments on your behavior were strictly keeping in line with Wikipedia policie and were never at one moment threats, if I wanted to make deogratory comments there is a whole host of bad faith words that I could have used but I didn't because there was no need to. If anything you two feel more strongly than I do on this subject. And your claim that I am not much liked are totaly unsubstantiated since I have a good working relationship with a number of editors, and all of my discussions ended peacfully with all editors. And besides that is not the point of this discussion. I never, ever, said your views are not valid, I said your personal oppinions don't count, the official sources count. And when I said you should refrain I ment you should refrain from trying to make your edits based on your personal feelings for future potentional conflicts with other editors who follow Wikipedia policie. And your comment that you are assuming the result of the discussion is going to be to remove the airman is simply not fact since Vojvodae and EllsworthSK, who also had concerns like you two that the airman should be removed and were included in the discussion, have changed their minds after I had a talk with them and explained them the same things I did to you, and neather of them accused me of deogratory comments. According to them at least I wasn't wrong since you said I have been proven wrong on multiple occasion. :) Also, if anything, your accusations that I have been threatening you and accusing me of a bad working relationship with other editors, which is not true, is realy deogratory and should warn you its in violation of Wikipedia rule on civility. So I would politely ask you to cool off for a bit before making such heated arguments and try discussing this in a manner we can reach a concencuss, I have at every turn assumed good faith from you but pointed out that you didn't assume good faith toward me and pointed out to you the mistakes you were making with Wikipedia rules, that was one of myfalse claims as you put it. So if you have sources that counter the official line of the British government that he didn't die as part of the campaign against Libya please provide them, if not again please refrain, simple as that. EkoGraf (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Responded
Responded to your comment, Click here to return fire. Goldblooded (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Return fire? What is this? A shooting match? You want to discuss like civil people or continue regarding this as threats and accusations? EkoGraf (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm reminding both of you not to treat Wikipedia as your battleground.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What? Seriouisly? Are you trying to get me banned on purpose? I saw another user had "return fire" it might of been Zscout or Σ i cant remember instead of the usual user talk link. It has nothing to do with a battleground it basicailly means reply. Stop making things out of nothing- i can see what your doing Eko. Its obvious your trying to twist my words and get me banned. Judging by your edits and talk page youve caused a lot of controvesy here stop trying to agrovate things. Thank you. Goldblooded (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Have anyone read a tile on this page called "BATTLEGROUND" or "Reviewer of Essays"???! Thanks Jasper :p     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  03:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)