User talk:RiskAficionado/Archive 6

Dear Itaqallah
Real nice of you to point to Wikipedia rules and all, but your reverts and critique on my edits in Battle of Mu'tah make no sense at all. The reason I changed numbers here in the Battlebox is because anyone can see "100,000 vs 3,000 makes 20,000 vs 15 casualties" is ridiculous. It would take a muslim like you that obviously has a certain POV to revert such numbers, sadly justifying my comment. You were right to see my edits in the text as original research but the numbers in the right are just too stupid to remain there. It's like telling me to prove 1+1≠3 without original research, because its just so obviously wrong. Therefore changing the casualties from 15 vs "20,000" to "Unknown, but likely far lower than 20,000" is not original research, but basic relativating.

Wiki1609 22:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Criticism_of_Islam#A_.22Praise_of_Islam.22_article

Please express your view on this, as you seem to be one of the Muslim people editing Criticism of Islam.Coldbud 01:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Houri
Arrow740 has an agenda on his own, he is vandalizing major cited primary source contents in this article. He won't discuss any of it, but only keeps deleting. Keep an eye on this article, if you can.

Mahdi Article
Itaqallah, I'd made some changes to the Mahdi article (As well as suggested merging several Mahdi-related articles) and I was told that you would be helpful in a current disagreement regarding changes to the Mahdi article. I believe the sourcing and claims to be poor, and that it would be misleading to a casual user of Wikipedia. Please let me know your thoughts on the matter. Elijahmeeks 18:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify allegation of misquotation
Please clarify the allegation of misquotation you made on me here. How did I misquote you? --Matt57 20:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * you misquoted me in a derogatory manner. please review what you attributed to me.  ITAQALLAH   23:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You made the claim that I misquoted you. It is you who must provide the proof. --Matt57 00:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * i said "i wouldn't regard my untranslated Qur'anic extract as campaigning", and you claim i said "oh, but its a little untranslated Quranic verse." please re-read what i wrote above.  ITAQALLAH   00:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Its the same thing. You minimized your own verse while you complained about a link ProtectWomen used on her own page. What is your opinion of my own user page? You are ok with anyone having a Quranic verse or hadith on their user page, correct? --Matt57 01:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * it's not the same thing: you misquoted me in a highly inappropriate manner. why is my opinion about your user page relevant? i do take issue with users engaging in WP:POINT violations. i think we've had this discussion before.  ITAQALLAH   01:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It was not inappropriate. Arrow740 01:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Itaq yea, it wasnt inappropriate. Let me know if you have a better quotation I can use for my user page. There is no POINT violations here, alright. Do what you wanna do. Let me know and we'll get all verses deleted from all user pages, included the one on yours so we can all stop soapboaxing etc. --Matt57 03:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * either you don't believe that posting such on user pages is policy violation, in which case you are simply wikilawyering and interrogating me on my talk page; or you do believe it is a policy violation, in which case you have scored an own goal in your own zeal and violated (and continue to violate) WP:POINT. i don't think there's anything else to say here, have a nice day.  ITAQALLAH   15:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Islam sentiment
Yes it is, on that article. Read my comments on the categories discussion page where I have explained why. -- Karl Meier 12:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That the category survived an AfD doesn't mean that it is neutral on the article we are discussing, or that we have to include it. It is not up to us to make any judgments about if their criticism of Islam is somehow "legitimate", and making the claim that their criticism is based more on feelings rather than on reason by including that category is of course not neutral. -- Karl Meier 05:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of sockpuppet contribs...

 * The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi there Itaqallah, i saw your re-reversion of Matt57's revert. Just so you know my thoughts on this, i reverted it simply because it was by a blocked user (ie, as a sock). Generally, i have no problems with a sock's edit being re-reverted by a legitimate user if the sock's edits were legitimate (I've actually reverted and reinstated myself once before - and today, i suggested others do it in an edit summary). If the edits were good, i don't think they should subsequently be forever removed from wikipedia simply cos a sock of a banned user did it. But i do think it is important to make the initial removal. I'm just letting you know my thoughts, and not trying to direct you in any way. You've no doubt seen I am in disagreement with Matt57 on this initial revert of socks, but I have not attempted to re-revert his reinstatement of edits he thinks are good. It's certainly an interesting issue. kind regards Merbabu 17:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * yeah, i see what you mean. it seems to be standard practice on Wikipedia to revert contributions, including those who restore the contributions of sockpuppets. but anyway, i am not so concerned that i will revert further. regards,  ITAQALLAH   18:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also please dont delete talk content from your pages for current discussions. --Matt57 22:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * i have removed the trolling and bogus warnings from my talk page. my patience of this harrassment is wearing thin.  ITAQALLAH   22:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You removed completely legitimate discussion of your edits. Arrow740 22:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * stomping around on my talk page, as was done here, is trolling. he should consult the links at the top of this page.  ITAQALLAH   22:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not stomping. I believe falsely accusing others of being a troll is trolling itself. Can you please now respond to my query below and tell me why DavidYork's edits were not good in the cases I linked below? --Matt57 22:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * David was banned and shouldn't have edited wikipedia in the first place.--Aminz 22:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ItaqAllah, please dont delete my comments repeatedly and dont accuse me of harrassment. An admin has confirmed that "If it's an unquestionably good edit, then I would say it shouldn't be reverted". I have asked you to justify your reverts  of valid edits from DavidYork. In short you should explain why DavidYork's edits which you reverted in those cases were not "good edits". You should know that if you continue to remove valid edits, you may be blocked from Wikipedia . --Matt57 22:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * David was banned and shouldn't have edited wikipedia. Comments made on user talk pages could be removed when they are read(please see ). --Aminz 22:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As I have mentioned, an admin said that valid edits do not need to be reverted, no matter who made them (banned users or sock puppets). --Matt57 22:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That admin said: "I'm talking specifically about reverting edits made before and after a block. If the user is evading their block, that's a whole 'nother issue...That's more of a grey area. I would personally agree with you, that each edit should be weighed on its merits, but it's certainly not something that I can use the word "absolutely" about (like I did above), nor say that it's mandated by policy."
 * Please do not misrepresent other user's comments. --Aminz 22:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And Itaqallah, you have all the rights to remove Matt's comments from your talk page after you've read them. --Aminz 22:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Aminz, please do not misquote and misrepresent the admins. The admin has said: "If it's an unquestionably good edit, then I would say it shouldn't be reverted."ItaqAllah violated Wikipedia policies by failing to ackowledge wrong reverts and removing good edits. --Matt57 22:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is his personal view: "I can use the word "absolutely" about (like I did above), nor say that it's mandated by policy." - This comment of yours was thus improper:"You should know that if you continue to remove valid edits, you may be blocked from Wikipedia." --Aminz 23:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do I need to requote the admin again for you? He has SAID that valid edits should NOT be reverted. ItaqAllah's and now your job as well, is to explain how the 2 edits he reverted were not good edits. --Matt57 23:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * people will get blocked for violating policies not for personal disagreements. --Aminz 23:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoa. Didn't know I was wading into a hornet's nest.  I'll have to review this before I can say anything further, but needless to say, my opinion does not policy make.  I'm just one of 1000+ admins, and frankly, our opinions aren't worth more or less than anyone else's.  I will say that on first blush, that's a pretty big change for a blocked user to make, and I would have reverted it too, then asked for discussion on the talk page to see if it was a valid edit.  Small, helpful edits, I don't have a problem with.  Changing lots of content or media without discussion or consensus (that I could see), isn't really good for any user to do, and definitely not for blocked users evading their blocks.  I was speaking in generalities since I didn't know the specifics.  — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  23:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Bbatsell, thanks for coming here, I hope this is resolved soon. This is really a small issue, I'm sorry you are spending time on this as you are an admin. What I have been saying is and what I believe you also agreed to: An edit should not be reverted solely because it was made by a sock puppet. It may be a good edit and if it is, it should not be reverted. If it is reverted then the reason should be based on the edit itself. Feel free to make a judgement and close this discussion. Again I apologize that you had to spend time on this small issue. --Matt57 23:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This remarkably unproductive discussion appears to be a proxy for disputes on Islam-related articles. DavidYork71 was rightly blocked, and I see nothing especially compelling about these sockpuppet edits. Please address real underlying concerns directly and in the relevant places. Also, note that Itaqallah's username has only one capital letter.Proabivouac 23:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Comments on my talk page
Hi  ITAQALLAH  , I am also leaving these comments on Matt57's talk page. I have had a look through the various edits, disputes and what you posted on another admin's page. 1) As regards the original question "should illegal edits be reverted systematically or only where it improves the article", my personal understanding of policy is that this is a "grey area". There is a constant argument about this in particular in the context of WP:COI, and also where there is a linkspam campaign. There is no clear consensus and in the end it is a balanced argument (I think most people would accept systematic reversion of a spam bot, but most people would allow an individual to say correct their own date of birth on a page about them without systematically reverting it). In this case I think that the least arguable course of action if the additions were good would have been for Matt57 to reword them in his own words and not remark it as a revert. But perhaps life is too short for this luxury. 2) As regards what then happened between Matt57 and Itaqallah, I think it would be fair to say that the summary given to User_talk:Bbatsell was a bit disingenuous and Matt57 managed to irritate him by it. Also that Matt57 you probably approached Itaqallah's reverts rather aggressively when he seemed happy to discuss them, and shouldn't really have made a block threat (although it was politely worded etc.. so). On these points, depending on the standards of conduct you set yourself, you might consider a small apology. However, all of us probably do this kind of thing on a bad day when things have been frustrating etc so it isn't that bad. Itaqallah perhaps took it more seriously overall than I would tend to, but I guess that's an entitlement. So to summarise "a bit disingenuous, a bit aggressive but not too serious: I would suggest some sort of apology for any offence caused and then we move on". --BozMo talk 20:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * BozMo, thanks for the message. I'll admit I might have come on a little hard on Itaq. Itaq, sorry about that. I really thought that its wrong to revert edits which are not based on the edit itself. As others pointed out, this is a grey area. There should be clear cut policies on this. Anyway, thanks and I look forward to working together better. --Matt57 16:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * thanks, your comments are much appreciated.  ITAQALLAH   16:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Arrow
Please take a look at Arrow's comment here. The way he tries to justifies his incivil comments is interesting. --Aminz 06:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are offended by my reference to you as Allah, then I apologize. You didn't complain so I didn't think you cared. Arrow740 17:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to help guard your talk page
Itaqallah, I have an unusual offer for you. It distresses me to notice that your user talk remains a magnet for trollish behavior. On Wikipedia generally, consensus does not yet exist for WP:RPA and other proposals which I would see as common sense. At these same time, users are allowed some measure of control over their own talk pages. If you are willing to deputize me as a guardian of your talk page, I shall enthusiastically remove incivilities directed at you and admonish editors who engage in them. You would of course be free to revoke this at any time. I am interested in experimenting with the idea of literally demanding good conduct and directly preventing unhelpful conduct. Regardless of your feelings about this, I hereby officially invite and allow you to make changes to my talk page in the same spirit (and have appreciated several of your edits in the past) whenever you might feel so inclined.Proabivouac 08:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As a result of the above exchange I have also put your talk page on my watchlist. --BozMo talk 17:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

David York
Some of his IPs are from Sydny in Australia, some others from Richmond Queensland in Australia. I just reverted one of his edits to your talk page. Not sure if he could be properly controlled. --Aminz 10:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hadith of Najd
Itaqallah, what is your opinion of the use of this crudely-crafted image on the article Hadith of Najd?Proabivouac 06:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Know of any notable RS critics of Islam?
This question is open to you, Aminz and others: Do you know of any critics of Islam who are notable and RS? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * searching for authors who entertain a particular perspective in order to forward their views on Wikipedia is not an appropriate approach. see also WP:UNDUE.  ITAQALLAH   20:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I see your point but could you answer my question? By the way, UNDUE applies to minority views only. Nowwhere does wikipedia state that we should not search for authors of a particular view, and niether does it say that the act of this searching means WP:UNDUE. I look forward to hearing your answer now. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * well, cherrypicking certain points of view to award prominence in articles is usually what the Wikipedia community regards as 'POV-pushing'. your prime concern should be to represent academic opinion within the contraints of WP:NPOV, and especially WP:UNDUE. after all, we want to make Wikipedia a scholarly reference. i don't see mainstream academic opinion espousing the nonsense associated with the typical DIY 'critic'.  ITAQALLAH   21:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats not what I'm talking about. I'm asking if you believe whether there are any critics of Islam that are notable and also RS. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Islamic view of miracles
When an article contains the tag "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.", it is obviously controversial. Please dont try to sabotage the work this taskforce is trying to do and be more cooperative. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * POV disputes do not make the article topic "controversial", which is what this apparent task force is supposed to focus on: Islam and associated 'controversy'. some of the articles listed there are wholly inappropriate.  ITAQALLAH   22:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The taskforce is there to improve the quality of the articles. Even if an article doesnt really belong in the list of articles, there's no harm by having it there. There can only be advantage in having it in the list. The more focus an article receives from editors, the better. Note I did not say that this article doesnt belong there. I said what I said, i.e.: the list exists for the purpose of improving the articles and resolving POV issues for them. Controversy means that there's controversy in the issue, i.e. people have different POV's on it and this article qualifies for it and all the others you removed.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Continued on the Talk page of the TF. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * content disputes do not make the topic controversial with respect to Islam. what you have turned this taskforce into is a list of articles experiencing content disputes, for a select audience to then intervene upon.  ITAQALLAH   22:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Continued on talk page of the project. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Submission image
Please open up discussion on the article's page if you think it doesnt qualify for fair use. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * already have, please justify your revert.  ITAQALLAH   01:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Benefits of the taskforce Islam and controversy
I dont see how you think that the taskforce can be "misused" by including an article which doesnt belong there (suppose for a moment it doesnt belong there). How can this result in a misuse? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ali sina( does he exist???)
I have seen you are working on Ali sina article but let me tell i tried that too but there are bunch of people who are working their and they don't let anyone write about any other views they only write their views. I am 100% sure this group belongs to Ali Sina(if he really exist) or that faith freedom website people. I think these people are not individuals who are working to contribute wikipedia but they work for ffi website and they get paid for it. thats why its difficult to contribute on that article. but keep trying...All the Best. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 77.99.113.81 (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

List of people with epilepsy
Thanks for your recent contribution. I've added another question for you that you might not have spotted if the page isn't on your watch list. I'm interested in getting full citations for refs you gave. Please respond here. Cheers, Colin°Talk 17:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Watt's characterization of others' views
Please give the full quote with the full context of this: "According to Montgomery Watt, recent writers have generally dismissed notions of deceit, arguing that he was sincere and acted in good faith." on the talk page of Criticism of Muhammad. Arrow740 04:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Talk:Criticism_of_Muhammad.  ITAQALLAH   22:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyright policy
Here you removed text saying that this copyright violation. NN followed saying that copyright violating is genreally only 10%. You did not make attempts to remove it again with the summary "copyright violation" after that. Is there a policy that confirms that its a copyright violation? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * correction, i removed it stating it was a copyvio and from an unreliable source. extensive quoting from a copyrighted source can be regarded as a copyvio. i didn't know where Nayan Nev obtained the figure of 10%, and as i didn't know any better, i assumed he knew what he was talking about.  ITAQALLAH   22:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ok, well. Anyway. Here's a link for swollen breasts. Something must be up if people are talking about it. Plus "high bosomed" is also there. Search that in google too: high bosmed quran . --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, there are other EL on the FFI article which are only or mostly about Ali Sina. I wonder why you didnt remove them too. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * check the 3rd link (islamonline.net) on that search result. i don't think anything's up, i think some people don't know what they're talking about. as for the EL, i am yet to review the other links.  ITAQALLAH   12:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That says nothing: "For this translation, we refer him to a real Austrian scholar on the language of the Qur’an, later known as Muhammad Asad (Review The Message of the Qur’an)." Who is Mohammed Asad? and how is he translating "voluptious" to "beings of ditinction", something which those 3 known translators have not done? "High bosomed" is mentioned in the Quran as well, as you can see from Google. These are two mentions, combined with the maidens that Allah already promises to Muslims who'll go to heaven so its pretty obvious these sexual references must be true. Yes I'll have to bring reliable sources for these claims, which I'll do at some point.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 17:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Asad was definitely an apologist. Arrow740 18:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Who is Mohammed Asad? and how is he translating "voluptious" to "beings of ditinction", something which those 3 known translators have not done?" Matt, please read what i wrote again. you don't know what kawa'ib means. i have no interest in your google searches. the usc.edu/MSA site made a mistake, go check a hard copy of Y. Ali's translation. Pickthall's translation is different also. i think that concludes this discussion.  ITAQALLAH   13:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There you go, nicely dealt with. All citations for "Swollen full round" breasts mentioned in Quran (arabic word Kawaib) have been provided: 72 Virgins. Thankfully Ibn Kathir is available everywhere. We should try to find more interesting information from Ibn Kathir. I'm delighted to have found the sources. I was thinking we might not find anything. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Gary Miller AfD
Here is an AfD where all the "votes" were coming from anonymous IPs, yet the admin decided to keep the article. Do you know why? We can remove anonymous votes, right? I know its not voting, but thats whatever it is - these are sockpuppets clearly coming in out of nowwhere. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The questionable passage
AND WHOSOEVER HAS RECOURSE TO ALLAH FOR PROTECTION HAS BEEN GUIDED TO THE RIGHT PATH. 0 THOSE WHO HAVE TRUSTED (Mu'minun) OBSERVE PROPER OBEDIENCE TO ALLAH and do not die except you be Muslimun. AND HAVE RECOURSE FOR PROTECTION TO THE PACT (habl) OF ALLAH AS A COLLECTIVE GROUP (jami'-an) AND DO NOT SPLIT APART, but remember Allah's bounty to you when you were enemies and He reconciled/united your hearts so that you became, by His bounty, brothers. And you were on the brink of a pit of fire but he delivered you from it-thus does Allah make His signs clear to you, perchance you will be guided. LET THERE BE OF YOU A CONFEDERATION (ummah) INVITING TO GOOD/WEAL/PROSPERITY AND ORDERING WHAT IS RECOGNIZED/CUSTOMARY AND PROHIBITING WHAT IS UNRECOGNIZED and those are they who prosper.

Stillman writes that this passage underwent two revisions. The original material is the uppercase, the first revision added the lower case section, the second the italicized sections. He bases this on a correspondence with the language in sections A and B of the "Constitution." He writes of the particular phrase on your userpage, "As the passage stands al-Tabari informs us that it was revealed when the old pre-Islamic feud between Aws and KJazraj, who formed the confederation (jumma') of the Ansar, fomented by a Jew, threatened to break out afresh. So here the Qur'an reminds the Ansar of the pact document (A) which had united them into a single confederation (ummah). The use of the word 'brothers' may be related to akh when it means the member of a tribe. The phrase 'and do not die except you be Muslimun' does not seem to fit into the historical context, but it could suit the situation just prior to Uhud, and some of the other italicized sections, possibly all of them, may belong also to the second recension." Bell agrees that the surah is composite. If you're interested I suppose I can send you the paper. Arrow740 22:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * that's an interesting analysis, albeit a little novel.  ITAQALLAH   15:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Eurabia
I believe keeping the categories I placed there are appropriate. They were removed by User:Beit Or, but I re-added. What are your thoughts? Khorshid 10:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Islam
Salam Alaykum, How are you bro?

Please check the portal. Do you agree about my editions. -- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 13:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * good changes. i don't mind changing the selected personality to Ali, it's just that the article itself still needs a lot of work and still has a few problems. but anyway, it's not much of a big deal..  ITAQALLAH   14:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Mahdi
Salam, Few weeks ago a guy changed Mahdi article. I told him you should endorse his changes:User talk:Elijahmeeks. I don't know whether he told you or not, but please check his edition and write your idea in the talk page. Jazak Allah Khayr-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 17:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Rafida
Blocked the newest one. It would be a million times easier if you were and admin. Have you considered requesting adminship? We certainly could use Arabic and Urdu speaking (or at least semi literate) admins, as those articles are often quite contentious over very technical points of grammar. It would be nice to have some admins (who are literate in wikipedia policy) that are familiar with that area. I know your user box says you do not wish to be one, but if you were, we could easily solve the problem at Rafida by either blocking and rolling back the vandals as they come up, or full protecting it (In which case you'd still be able to edit, albeit very carefully and within full protection policy). Any thoughts? I'd be happy to nominate you. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    On Belay!  17:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)