User talk:تسلیم

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello every body!

Cyrus cylinder[edit]

Hello, your vote for Cyrus cylinder has been canceled! May be because of this "Soapboxing votes will be ignored". please write a specialized description (I changed too). Thanks Iranway (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your guide but, as I have not enough information about photography I have no plan to vote again. My first vote also was a fault!--Submitter to Truth (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

July 2008[edit]

Information.svg Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Seventh Heaven. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you.

WP:PROVEIT (part of WP:V states:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

The material you restored was "challenged" back in early May with templates. Two months later it is still wholly unsourced -- and so can legitimately be removed. HrafnTalkStalk 15:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

My Freind, Many location of the article that you removed have enough document, also the links to heavens according to Jewish literature have a lot of Citing sources. I think you should not remove all of the so important article so fast and you should talk about it one by one!--Submitter to Truth (talk) 06:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The two references (not "many") in the Jewish section do not verify the statements referenced to them -- and have been tagged as such. They are therefore worthless. The only other reference is to "Al-Burhan fi Tafsir Al-Qur'an V.5 P.415" -- which I left in. Please do not restore (long-tagged) unverifiable information. Doing so is in violation of WP:V. HrafnTalkStalk 07:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
My Friend, You removed the whole document! Which I know that have reference.Maybe you are right and it has not enough refrence. But if you are a researcher, then you should complete it! Not just to remove the whole article!!!--Submitter to Truth (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
As Hrafn has pointed out, the burden of evidence lies on the person making claims, not the person doubting them. Don't worry, your work hasn't been lost - it's all saved here until you've found sources that back it up. You can even restore it statement by statement as you go instead of all at once. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks my friends for your follow up, That is not my work! The only statement that I had added to that article is still there and is almost the only cited statement there! And now is on the top of article, But that is not what to make me happy! The pages that Hrafan removed was important part as well. But I have no time for the moment to supply the enough docs for it. And you deny researchers to see them!--Submitter to Truth (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
My main concern is with sending unverified information to thousands of readers. If you're worried that this will be forgotten or lost before researchers can get to it, I'd be perfectly happy to add a to-do list on the article's talk page that includes a link to the previous version so they will know what to look for. That way no progress will be lost, and we won't risk misinforming the public. Does that sound like a fair compromise? --Explodicle (T/C) 17:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Simpler to just post a copy of the removed material to talk, which I have just done. 18:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
That works too. Submitter to Truth, do you have any objections with keeping this on the Talk page for now? --Explodicle (T/C) 20:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think to-do-list is better, But that works also. Now I feel better and other researchers can complete the article documentations easier. Thank you Explodicle--Submitter to Truth (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to Elohim[edit]

This article is about one specific ancient Hebrew word, not "plural grammatical forms referring to God in Abrahamic religions". Arabic comparisons are only useful to the article insofar as they throw direct light on the word Elohim. Extended discussion of 1st. person plural forms in the Hebrew Bible itself would be out of place in the article, so that 1st. person plural forms in the Qur'an are even more remote... AnonMoos (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry my freind, that's your opinion but not mine! The article is about Elohim. And my edits have relation with Elohim. Please leave the discussion in the article talk page and not hear!--Submitter to Truth (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Whatever -- this is not a matter of conflicting "opinions". AnonMoos (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Aramaic nonsense[edit]

Aramaic Aloha is cognate with Hebrew Eloah and Arabic Ilah -- but it is not Elohim, and the original text of the New Testament was written in Greek, not Aramaic. AnonMoos (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That is also your opinion. Please refer to Aramaic Primacy and by the way in English translations the word Elohim is used!--Submitter to Truth (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
No, it is not merely my "opinion" -- the article Aramaic Primacy itself says that "the dominant scholarly view" is Greek Primacy. This "opinion" stuff is getting pretty old pretty quick... AnonMoos (talk) 09:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and some other scholars think different than your opinion!--Submitter to Truth (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Whatever, dude -- Wikipedia goes by the "dominant scholarly view" -- and that's NOT just my opinion! AnonMoos (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
let me have your reference for this claim? Minority and Majority are both exist! And Valid to mention in the article--Submitter to Truth (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
The earliest Aramaic version of the gospels was the Diatesseron of Tatian.
The Old Syriac versions and the Peshitta show definite evidence of being translations from Greek. One such piece of evidence is the use of )t) btr ('come after') where the Greek uses akolutho ('follow').
Moreover, the Ugaritic texts include both )l and )lh as meaning 'god', though )l usually refers to the god El. BobGriffin-Nukraya (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

January 2009[edit]

Stop hand nuvola.svg Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Seven Heavens‎. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right. I have rewrote the material according to Talmud and Jewish Ency. Thanks--Submitter to Truth (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Information.svg Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Seven Heavens‎. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. The statement...

Also in ancient astronomy, before the telescope was invented, people referred to the Sun, Moon, and the five planets visible with the naked eye as the seven heavenly objects. Colloquially, among English-speakers, it expresses bliss or happiness (e.g., "I am in seventh Heaven"). In German, the same expression exists: "Ich fühle mich wie im siebten Himmel", q.e. "I feel like I'm in seventh heaven.") Conceptually similar, however differing in number is the Romanian colloquial expression for bliss or happiness: "I am in the ninth sky [Heaven]".

... has been repeatedly deleted as unsourced per WP:V. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That is not my sentence! I just returned what was there before redirecting!--Submitter to Truth (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ishmaelites merge proposal[edit]

Merge discussion for Ishmaelites[edit]

Information.svg An article that you have been involved in editing, Ishmaelites, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. ~ AdvertAdam talk 10:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)