Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:17, 6 June 2006

archive

Islamic Barnstar Award

Thank you for voting to keep the image for the Islamic Barnstar Award at the May 27 voting page. --JuanMuslim 13:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

An award

question to readers

Is this nn, or should i creat it? Of course, the articel sucks, but im not asking about contents, rather about notability. --Striver 10:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Wiki stalking

Please do not stalk my edits. This is against wiki policy. --Strothra 23:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Im not doning that, im just cheking my watched articles. Are you surprised that i have conspiracy and anti american foreign politics articles on my watch list? Peace. --Striver 23:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what kinds of things you may or may not have in your watchlist. I just wanted to make sure you weren't wikistalking which I believe you probably aren't doing. Just making sure though. --Strothra 23:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem, i have not even visited your main page yet. You are welcome back to talk any time. --Striver 23:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks although keep in mind that my main page doesn't exactly give the details of my politics on specific issues which don't neccesarily follow the lines you may assume by reading it. BTW, you may want to keep an eye on your watchlist so that you can put keeps on those articles because I'm putting them up for AfD. Good sportsmanship and all that I guess. --Strothra 23:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning, peace. --Striver 23:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"<Islamic denomination> view of x" vs "<major religion> view of y"_view_of_x"_vs_"<major_religion>_view_of_y"-2006-05-20T23:33:00.000Z">

Islamic denominations are nowhere near as major as...well...a major religion, such as Islam itself. A chosen religion (such as Islam or Christianity) is not as POV as is a faction of that religion (such as Shi'a or Presbyteriansim). Notice how there aren't any pages on "Episcopalian view of z" or "Baptist view of w", or even "Orthodox Jewish view of blahblah". Likewise, I don't feel that there should be any need for "Shi'a view of foo" or "Sunni view of" whatever. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 23:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)_view_of_x"_vs_"<major_religion>_view_of_y""> _view_of_x"_vs_"<major_religion>_view_of_y"">

Well, look again:

• Mormon view of Jesus
• Evangelical Christian views of Hanukkah
• Unification Church views of homosexuality

And anyhow, even if you where right that the above article did not exist, i dont agree with you that they should not exist. Why in the worl should the line be drawn there? WHy not call all three worl religions as Abrahamic religions and claim they should not be divided? Is the Bahai faith over the line? They are a Shi'a shootout. And since when does it become POV to have belong to a denominnation, while the religion it self is not POV? Maybe you meant undue weight? No, probobly not. Maybe non-notable? You need to learn what POV means, it means Point Of View, nothing else.--Striver 08:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)_view_of_x"_vs_"<major_religion>_view_of_y""> _view_of_x"_vs_"<major_religion>_view_of_y"">

Striver, here in Misplaced Pages saying "this is POV" is shorthand for "this represents one POV with the exclusion of others", that is, "this violates WP:NPOV". I agree with you that not having a certain kind of articles doesn't mean it's forbidden to create articles of that kind. However, it's important that those articles: 1) do not include original research, 2) are not created just to present a particular POV, especially if that POV is controversial. The relevant guideline here is actually Misplaced Pages:Content forking. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry, that is not the meaning of POV. The meaning of POV is to claim something that is only true from a specific point of view. I know that original research is not wanted here, that is why i source what i write. Regarding your "articles...are not created just to present a particular POV, especially if that POV is controversial", try reading "None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them.". Peace. --Striver 18:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I repeat: in Misplaced Pages "being POV" is shorthand for "representing only one POV". You needn't quote WP:NPOV. There's a whole section explaining that minority views should receive attention, but not as much attention as majority or generally accepted views. Mind you, this is not a criticism of your articles. I have no knowledge to say whether they're correct or how representative they are. It seems to me that Shi'a views of should be integrated into the articles about , not split apart (= POV forking). But I'm really only here in account of your telling other people to go read the NPOV policy and resorting to defensive language, instead of explaining them why you think the "Shi'a view of..." articles are worthy. Referring to other articles in Misplaced Pages is no good; many articles are unworthy of it and yet persist because nobody notices... —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I finally got around to replying to you. Here we go...

• Mormon view of Jesus--not about the actual view, but about The Living Christ, some declaration thing put out by the Mormons. Therefore it is not OR. Also, the page is titled "The Living Christ".
• Evangelical Christian view of Hannukah--doesn't exist. I tagged it for speedy deletion as empty (which, i might add, it was--it was a broken redirect to nowhere). I don't even know how you found the page, really...
• Unitarian whatever--well, all I can say is that sexuality is a much broader topic than, say, ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib.

--M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 03:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if you ever saw this since your talk page used to be so long, so here it is! --M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see the end of the Islamic view of Jesus talk page. --Striver 15:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)_view_of_x"_vs_"<major_religion>_view_of_y""> _view_of_x"_vs_"<major_religion>_view_of_y"">

MSASFU

Creating an article on a local branch of an international organization is not a good idea. However, if there isn't already an article on the Muslim Students Association as an *international* organization, there should be. (I think they are in the Islam in the US article, and possibly in other country articles.) But are you sure that you're the one to write it? Can you be neutral? I believe that they're Salafi-leaning, and Salafis don't like Shi'a. Zora 18:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you where right: Muslim Student Association, thx --Striver 20:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Message?

Was wondering why you didn't give a warning on the reversion , which seems to me to have been vandalism. Or was it not vandalism (perhaps harassment?), or didn't warrant placing the message? I think it's too late now; when I place warning templates I do it at the time I do the revert. Шизомби 23:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Im not sure what you mean, i assume you mean that i was the victim of vandalism/harassment. In that case, yes,i view it so. Why i didnt complain? Why bother, im routinly harrased, stalked, called idiot, conspiracy-nutbag, Shi'a-extrem-pov-editor, being blocked, the blocking adming breaking not one, but two rules, and nobody caring... If they didnt care then, why should they care now? --Striver 00:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

please tell me your idia

salam

I guess you aren't from the middle east. If I'm right please read these pages(] and ) and tell me your idea. although you don't like this subject probably, but I want to know if these articles show bad view of Muslim's or not. --Sa.vakilian 04:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sistani

please see this, and tell if its a fair way of describing Sistani?--Irishpunktom\ 14:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC) hm... i think that is more of Zereshk's quarter... ill ask him :) --Striver 14:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Will you please stop restoring the personal attacks, and personal remarks that is on Irishpunktoms userpage. Personal attacks is not allowed, and it doesn't matter if it happends on your or anyone else userspace. I don't make any nasty comments about you on my userpage or userspace, so I suggest that you and other members of the "Muslim Guild" stop these violations of Wikipedias NPA policy. -- Karl Meier 12:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

ha. ha. ha. Funny. Really funny to try to make this a "Muslim Guild" issue. And it is equally funny that you are offended considering your user page history. But considering that you have backed of your old user page, ill consider the dispute settled. Happy future editing. --Striver 15:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It is obvious that a large number of editors from the Muslim Guild (such as you, Irishpunktom, and Anonymous Editor) like and find it entertaining to make personal attacks, and will revert to protect their existance on userpages such as Irishpunktoms. It's an interesting organization, the Muslim Guild. I also noticed that I and a few other editors has also been singled out for harassment "scrutiny" on the Guilds talkpage. -- Karl Meier 18:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You are giving me way to much credit, those guys you mentined would have voted for kicking me out of wikipedia one year ago. Karl, rember that its me that is supposed to be the conspiratorial one here. Anyhow, i get your point, you feel bad. Ill try to be more nice twords you. As for the other guys, i dont boss over them. --Striver 19:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Moves

Striver, moving the articles to Islamic view of ruins the entire way the articles are written. The articles on their own deserve an article as important prophets not simply a "view" of the Biblical figure. Musa is important on his own as a prophet, not because he is a christian figure. I will keep the Jesus one however. The same discussion will not apply to the other pages. --a.n.o.n.y.m 16:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Salam brother. Ill answer on the Isa talk page. Peace. --Striver 16:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Striver it's not necessary to add that notice to all talk pages. It's fine, it has worked differently for the Isa one, leave other ones as they are since it will only result in too many pov forks. --a.n.o.n.y.m 16:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Bro, the reason im doing this is because i honestly belive that it is wrong to have it this way. We cant have a article named <English name of x> and another one <Arabic name of x>, and then let <English name of x> be about the Judeo chritian view, while the <Arabic name of x> is about the Islamic view. Remeber that Christian Arabs also use <Arabic name of x>.

God vs. savior

"Jesus (pbuh) is maybe not God in my Islamic view, but he is the awaited Savior."

A little off-topic for WP, maybe, but I think this was the original (and, in my view, most legitimate) Christian view of Jesus.Timothy Usher 04:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, i agree with that. But then came the Church... --Striver 07:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sahih Bukhari

Re your comments in Talk:Sahih Bukhari#Zora: You need to stop being so confrontational and pushing your POV. I'm getting tired of receiving reports of your bad behavior, reports that I must address because I'm an admin and have a responsibility. I assume you're a grown-up person, not a child, and you should be able to discuss things properly without creating an edit war in every single page you update with your "Shi'a view of X" trademark. I'm warning you that repeatedly coming close to violating policies counts against you in other people's appreciation. At this point, few would disagree that you should be blocked the next time you do things like you did in Sahih Bukhari (i. e. re-writing the whole article from your personal POV). So tread carefully. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Bro, i did not "re-writing the whole article from your personal POV", it is Zora that messed up the article. How is it that its me that is accused of "re-writing", when it is me that created it to start with? It is Zora that did the re-writing, and i listed my objection to her version there, and i was not the only one to do so, a Sunni editor was not to happy about her edits either. However, i do hear "I'm getting tired of receiving reports of your bad behavior". Next time you get one, inform me of it, and ill see how to respond. In *this* particualr issue, ie Sahih Bukhari, the basic for the complain, ie *me* doing the re-write, is false. --Striver 15:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't WP:OWN an article even if you started it. Zora and others edited the article, and you re-introduced your own content and resisted others' attempts to remove it. It doesn't matter what religious affiliation editors have. If you insist in viewing this as Shi'a POV vs. everyone else's, you'll get into this kind of trouble all the time.

The reports of your behaviour were made by JerseyDevil and you can read some in my talk page. You can also read what I told JD about them. In short, they refer to some of your habits that JD finds annoying, though not in violation of WP policies. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, i read about it. I try to take it at heart, but its really hard, since i consider "them" to be a equal, if not a greater pain. But they win, since they are politicaly correct. What im saying is that the feeling of being perceiving as extreamly anoying is mutual.

As for the Sahih Bukhari article, i dont claim ownership of it, i have added every single thing that Zora wants in it, and i even have made edits that Zora did not aprove of, but the Sunni editor demaned to have included. this is not a question of ownership, this is a good old content dispute. I have given a long and detailed arguemnt of why i deem the hadith list to be relevant to the article, and i perceive Zoras arguement to be lacking. She does have a good point some times, but she does not have one in this issue. Zora sometimes insist on having things her way just because she wants it, no mater the facts. If you want, ill give you as many examples as you want. --Striver 16:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Why Muslim Guild?

I am member of both Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Islam as well as the Muslim Guild. I also do not know that why the Muslim Guild is created? Should not be it merge with Islam project? --- Faisal 03:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, i dont have a good answer. I dont know if there is a good answer or not, i just dont have one. Maybe its just becaus i woke up 2 minutes ago... --Striver 07:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

hehe, I like that answer. The Muslim guild has an ability to deal with things which affect muslims, such as the religion of Islam - which is shared by Muslims, but also things which affect Muslims which have little bearing on the religions - such as the role of Women in Muslim societies, or Hujum, or Paranji, etc, etc. --Irishpunktom\ 14:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)