User talk:Daenumen

__NOINDEX__

previous talk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daenumen/archive1 Daenumen (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Forum comments
Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Mohammed for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

all of the points i raised are for correction of the article.

the article undermines islam, the work and life of the prophet, and it is not supported by the quran Daenumen (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked from editing. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The article attempts to provide an objective view of Islam as a religion, and is not written from the perspective that the Quran is true. That's to be expected in an encyclopedia, and what is mandated by WP:NPOV. If you reinsert that section, you will be blocked from editing.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

wrong, as i stated all of the points are as raised in the quran. Daenumen (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC) including the duty to warn you of what you are doing Daenumen (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The Muhammad article is a biography article about a historical person. It is not an article about Islam. Learn the difference, please. And, Wikipedia articles do not require support from the Qur'an. Wikipedia is not the place to lay out your own personal religious point of view. We strive to be neutral instead. You have no "duty" to warn us about anything, especially when based on your own personal religious beliefs. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * i agree that the article is not about islam, and thankyou but i can tell the difference, regardless my comment was in answer to all of the previous comments on the discussion page regarding the prophet muhammad. the prophet muhammads life was about islam, and the quran states clearly muhammads role on this earth as the prophet revealing the quran to the people. this is however being disregarded in the article, yet the article revolves around muhammad as a prophet and the messenger of islam. my point is, why do you refuse to state it in a factually accurate way?


 * the discussion i was having was based on the content of the quran, not souly my own personal beliefs, the beliefs shared also by muhammad and followers of islam, and the guise in which it is required for the prophet to be respected and honoured. to be ignorant of this fact is a prejudice and insensitivity toward an article which has strong religious conotations. again the life of muhammad was not disjoint from religion. the current article disregards that, ie it disregards who muhammad is in context with his role and position on earth and hence his biography is both presented in a manner contrary to his lifes work and also in a way that is factually inaccurate with respect to the sources validating his very existence on earth.


 * again muhammads life was to warn people of this, so too shall you be warned again. Daenumen (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Daenumen (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Final warning
Posting a link to the same WP:FORUM comments in userspace is the same thing. Do it again and you'll be blocked without further discussion. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing at Talk:Mohammed. Any admin can lift this block when the editor agrees to make an effort to abide by WP:NPOV and shows that he understands that talk pages are places to discuss article improvement from a neutral point of view, not places to publish religious instruction or pointers to religious instruction.. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. &mdash;Kww(talk) 19:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Daenumen (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

as a further note, it will be most beneficial for the content on the page talk:muhammad to be considered by someone that knows about the quran/muhammad in respect to his lifes work/religious duty and source verifying his role/life. Daenumen (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * the addition can be viewed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daenumen/muhammad. and orders all topics relating to muhammad from the top to the bottom of the page talk:muhammad Daenumen (talk) 10:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * While you've acknowledged why you were blocked (soapboxing on talk pages after repeat warnings to stop), you don't appear to be willing to stop it if you're unblocked. (In fact, you're more or less soapboxing in your unblock request now). If you're incapable of understanding why we don't permit this, you probably shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 20:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Daenumen/muhammad
User:Daenumen/muhammad, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Daenumen/muhammad and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Daenumen/muhammad during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Received your email
And as I said when declining your unblock request, you will need to email WP:ARBCOM directly if you wish to pursue this matter further, click here for details. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what part of this message is unclear to you. I didn't say "start a full-on arbitration case" I said "email ARBCOM directly". Details on how to do that in your situation are at WP:BASC. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)