User talk:Lkmen

Welcome : ) Lkmen (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

************ Biblical and Scientific Evidences 4 Islam : ) *************

 * My favorite channel on YouTube is: http://www.youtube.com/anashkhss

It is about Biblical and Scientific Evidences 4 Islam : )

******************** Math testify: (Koran) Qur'an is the word of God, word by word (word 4 word) ********************

 * My favorite web page is: http://www.islamnoon.com/languages.htm

It is about Quran: Math testify: Qur'an is the word of God, word by word.

************ Yellowstone In Islam ************
Probably, Yellowstone Lake was mentioned in Qur'an 18:86. In Islam, there was, before Mohammad long time ago, a great leader or prophet was named Thoo al Qarnain who went to the far west until he reached a hot spring of water which has a black clay, and then he was able to see the sunset on this lake or spring of water, which means that this lake or spring of water is large enough to see the sunset on it, like what you see when you watch the sunset on a sea. Because nobody can see the sunset on a small lake. He found a people near it, then Allah (God) had commanded him to rule these people by the law of Allah (God) according to the Qur'an. So, probably, these people were the ancient predecessors of the Native Americans, who were living near Yellowstone lake for about 11,000 years. All these info were based on Qur'an 18:86: "Until, when he reached the far west he saw the sunset on a hot spring of water which has a black clay, and he found near it a people". I also support this by how the lake looks like from the sky. The lake from air looks like a standing strong man, wearing two horns on his head, pointing his shield towards the west or the sunset. BTW, his name Thoo al Qarnain means in Arabic (the man of two horns). See Yellowstone lake on wikipedia. See also the black clay, and the sunset on that lake in the second 44 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAY5vpcap2Q

Yellowstone National Park
Please don't add sections that are unsupported by reliable sources. Mikenorton (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Someone's interpretation of a religious text is never going to be accepted as a reliable source, so please stop adding it. Mikenorton (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Enough! If you keep on re-adding this material then you will eventually be blocked. Mikenorton (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If you do produce a section to go in this article by working on it in your user space as suggested by Mike Cline below, it would be very helpful to start by proposing it on the article talk page first, thanks. Mikenorton (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome...

Hello, Lkmen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Mike Cline (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Re Yellowstone and Islam
I am not sure that any lengthy content about religion (any religion) would be appropriate for an article like Yellowstone. However, if that is a topic you'd like to work on, I would suggest drafting an article in your user space, something like Religions and Yellowstone and flesh it out with proper sourcing, etc. Working on draft articles in your user space (especially if they are likely to be contentious) is a far more productive way to work in WP. There are many editors who will help you become a productive Wikipedian if you want to be. I know from experience that trying to force contentious content into articles, especially one as popular and visible as Yellowstone is unlikely to do anything but alienate the editing community against you--something I sincerely hope you want to avoid. The community is here to help you. Let me know if I can help in anyway. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello and thank you very much : ).


 * You have said, "I am not sure that any lengthy content about religion (any religion) would be appropriate for an article like Yellowstone.".


 * Why not?! I think there isn't any rule in WP against such a thing. It is very informative section for any reader. It is important for any reader about Yellowstone to know what religions or cultures say about it. I supported that section by reliable sources for anyone wants to know what Islam says about Yellowstone by supporting it with Qur'an. And Qur'an is a reliable source in WP about the view of Islam on any subject, ether it is a geographical subject or something else. So, I hope you will help WP by bringing that section back and protecting it against any vandalism if you can do so. Or you may talk to someone who can. I am waiting for your help for WP. Have a nice day. : ) Lkmen (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * LK-a couple of thoughts. 1) It's counter productive to call someone's good faith efforts WP:agf to improve an article (ie reverting your edits) vandalism. Think twice before making that claim. 2) please read WP:npov carefully.  I am not going to debate whether Islam and yellowstone can be reliably sourced, but I will contend that it's a topic that will violate undue weight of our NPOV policy when seen in the light of the yellowstone article and is unlikely to be allowed to remain.  There are 1,000s of tidbits of content that could be added to article, but aren't because of undue weight.  Again, please consider drafting an independent article on the subject, and if it can pass muster can surely be linked to the main article. Mike Cline (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * LK

March 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Yellowstone National Park, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.Mikenorton (talk) 08:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your welcome. My edits to Yellowstone National Park are NOT original research. My edits have a reliable source. Thank you. Lkmen (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * LK you need to read the whole of WP:RS. Primary sources, such as the Qu'ran, can only be used with great care and anything at all controversial (such as this) needs a secondary source. Links to other wikis are explicitly not allowed and the same can be said for youtube videos. Therefore you do not have reliable sources for the content that you are trying to add. Mikenorton (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Yellowstone National Park. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Mikenorton (talk) 06:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Yellowstone National Park, you may be blocked from editing. Mikenorton (talk) 08:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You are verging on Edit Warring WP:3RR
Your persistent addition of the same controversial Islamic content to the Yellowstone article is not constructive. At least two editors do not believe the content should be added to the article and have graciously suggested alternatives to you for exploring ways for the community to review and decide if the content is appropriate for the Yellowstone article. Your persistence in re-adding the deleted content will not change the controversial nature of the content and it will be removed until such time that the wider community accepts it. Please be mindful that there are consequences for persistent edit waring, consequences I trust you don't want to endure. Please take advantage of previous suggestions and either discuss the controversial content on the article's talk page or draft an article in your user space before adding the content to the article again. Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Yellowstone National Park. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 08:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Reported

 * See Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. -Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 08:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Qur'an. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Islam, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. You've been warned about pushing original research and edit warring as well. Wikipedia is not here to push any point of view. We are not your own personal blog. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at Yellowstone
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for wider community evaluation at WP:NORN
Lkmen, even though you are blocked, you might want to follow the discussion that will occur here on the material you would like to add to the Yellowstone and Yellowstone Lake articles. Allowing a wider audience to evaluate contraversial content before adding it to an article is a far better approach than the path you've chosen so far. Please allow the community to access the content in light of OR, RS and NPOV for a few days. There are a great many experienced and wise editors that monitor that noticeboard. Once your block has expired, please feel free to participate in the discussion. Sincerely --Mike Cline (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Mike, I hope you will notice that my latest edits did NOT have all these info. My new edit is: (In Qur'an: "Until, when he reached the far west he saw the sunset on a hot spring of water which has a black clay, and he found near it a people". < .ref>Qur'an 18:86..)


 * As you see here: It is NOT WP:OR because it is a quote from Qur'an. And, it has 100% WP:RS because if any reader on Yellowstone wants to know what does major religions say about Yellowstone he will look for descriptions of places in its holy or text books. So, if he or she wants to know what does Islam say about Yellowstone he/she will look at Qur'an as No.1 source to know such a thing. Qur'an is 100% WP:RS about what does Islam say about anything. So, my edit is WP:RS and NOT WP:OR.


 * Now, does that verse talk about Yellowstone literally or through descriptions? Yes it does for sure. This very clear. No doubt about it. Why? Because Yellowstone is the only place in the (far west) that has (a hot spring of water which has a black clay) and (it is large enough so you can see the sunset on it) and (there were people living near it in the ancient times). If you, or anybody in the world can tell me of any place in the far west has these descriptions other than Yellowstone I will stop this edit. Lkmen (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Qur'an. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. External links pushing a specific religious viewpoint are not appropriate for Wikipedia articles - especially not personal YouTube channels -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Islam, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. You have been warned before about adding POV-pushing links to articles - if you continue, you will get another block -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, And I've reverted your continued disruption of Yellowstone Lake and Yellowstone National Park. You're lucky I didn't see these before I issued the warning above, otherwise you would now be blocked again. But be warned - do it again and another block will be inevitable -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Brother, I'm a Muslim too. You can contact me if you're trying to push a Muslim opinion without sources, however, insisting on unreliable sources and illogical edits are not acceptable. Please, save everyone the time by only editing with academic standards. This is not an Islamic book, but an encyclopedia that is based on logic and majority point of views. STOP your editing war, if you're willing to stay on Wikipedia, respectfully. Bless you :) AdvertAdam (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Qur'an and science
Hi. If you believe there is material that is irrelevant in an article, please don't just remove it as you did with Qur'an and science, but explain why it is irrelevant on the Talk page and get a consensus first - just saying it is irrelevant in the edit summary is not sufficient, especially if it is likely to be controversial -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: You also don't need to add Category:Islam, as some of the other categories are already in that category, putting the article in it too -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. Re "I do NOT have to discuses every edit in the talk page". Indeed, you do not need to discuss every edit on the Talk page - but you do need to explain your reasons properly in the summary, especially if a change is likely to be controversial. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thank you. Lkmen (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. I've started a discussion about the Bahá'í link, at Talk:Qur'an and science -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You have been warned that your arguments constitute original research, and that further disruption of the article talkpage were disruptive. Since you've been previously blocked, this block is for one week.  Subsequent blocks will be considerably longer or indefinite.   Acroterion   (talk)   18:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)