User talk:Alieseraj

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

Welcome to Wikipedia!!![edit]

Hello Alieseraj! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! ≈ jossi ≈ t@
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical
Wikimedia.png

≈ jossi ≈ t@ 15:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Question on "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" --> "Undue weight"[edit]

in article "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" --> "Undue weight" is written:

"Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well. Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

My Question : what do you mean by "popular views" and majority? for example if in one of the wikipedia languages, one view is the most popular and the other views are minority views, but in the whole world other views are majority, which view must be the most detailed one?

in other words, in one of the languages of wikipedia, the viewpoints(majority, minority) of people speaking that language must be presented, or the viewpoints of all the people of the world?

I think it would be correct for English wikipedia to represent the viewpoint of all of the people of the world; because most of the people can understand English -atleast as their second language. but what about the other languages? for example most of the people that understand Persian are muslims. So should the Islamic viewpoint have a more detailed description (depth of detail, quantity of text,...) in Persian wikipedia, as it is the majority viewpoint of people speaking Persian? How can I ask this from the Wikipedia for their official policies?

I have asked this question at many pages (New_contributors'_help_page, talk:Neutral_point_of_view, talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias,...), but I haven't got a good answer.

Where should I ask the question about the policies of other languages' wikipedia?

Thx answering :-)--Seraj 06:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

(plz dont delete the {helpme} if you haven't FULLY answered the question. thanks for your helps)

The different Wikipedias set their own standards, but languages are different than culture, race, religion, etc. It is the policy of the English Wikipedia to attempt to accurately reflect the balance of the world, not just the white christian world that developed and spread the English language. I don't think, for instance, that the Armenian Wikipedia can spend too much time worrying about bias. They have more important things to worry about like expansion. As for a place to ask on other 'pedias, I would suggest the equivalent to the village pump, if they have one. If they don't, try asking it specifically about a controversial article on the article's talk page. You will of course need to be able to speak their language. If it is a very small project you could ask one of the administrators directly. You can find a listing of users at Special:Listusers or whatever that is in the language. Please stop using {{helpme}} as it creates not an ongoing alert but a repeating alert. This tends to annoy us helpers more than it makes us alerted to the fact that we might enjoy helping you. If you want a more specific answer, please use my talk page rather than the help tag. Thanks—WAvegetarian(talk) 07:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Golden rule[edit]

I have reverted your additions to The Golden Rule as you have not cited any source which points out any connection to the quotes you gave. Plus the Quran quotes where they seemed about relevant were more akin to the silver rule I thought. Dmcq (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

1328101993 Rename.png Proposal for removing prefixes "Islamic views on xyz"
I have started a request move to remove the prefixes Attached with the Prophets in Islam to there Names as in Islam. Like Islamic views on AbrahamIbrahim or Abraham in Islam as it becomes difficult to search the topic. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Page Thanks. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Prophets in Islam may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • whenever both titles appear together, "messenger" comes first. The best of the Prophets are the [[[Ulu'l azm prophets|Ulul 'Azm (Possessors of strong will and perseverance)]], in patience and

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bathsheba, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tafsir al-Kabir (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Quran navbox[edit]

Just letting you know, per WP:NAVBOX, this template should only be added to articles that are specifically linked on the template. It doesn't mention the sons of Yaqub by name, so it shouldn't go on those pages. StAnselm (talk) 12:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The Articles that you have reverted are all in the template :) Seraj (talk) 12:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm just not seeing them. Can you tell me where they are? (Binding of Isaac, Simeon (Hebrew Bible), and Jeremiah). I thought I had a good look, but I might have missed them. Tell me what sections of the template they're in. StAnselm (talk) 12:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, I found Jeremiah and Simeon. They're both in the "implictly mentioned" sections. That looks like a rather dubious grouping to me. StAnselm (talk) 12:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Binding of Isaac: Dhabih Seraj (talk) 12:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
(ec) Thanks. My mistake. I have reverted my edit on Binding of Isaac. With regards to Jeremiah, etc., we have Template:Muslim saints. That seems to be complementary to Template:Characters and names in the Quran. We wouldn't need both on the same article. Jermeiah can't really be a "Prophet of Islam outside the Quran" as well as a "Character in the Quran". StAnselm (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
You are still reverting my edits :| What is the problem? Seraj (talk) 12:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The "Muslim saints" template ("Prophet of Islam outside the Quran"), includes the prophets that are not Explicitly mentioned in Quran; but the "Characters and names in the Quran" template includes the both the implicitly and explicitly mentioned prophets in Quran. but they are NOT equal : There are some prophets that are not explicitly nor implicitly mentioned in the Quran, but they are mentioned in the Hadith, so they are Islamic prophets (e.g. Daniel). This point is noted under the "Muslim saints" template. Seraj (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the name of the templates should be modified, so that no inconsistency is seen ... we have(had) the same problem at Khidr, Samuel, Dhul-Qarnayn & Luqman (even before) Seraj (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit summary[edit]

Thank you for your recent contributions. However, when you edit any page, please provide short edit summary as to what change you have made. It helps other understand about your edit. -AsceticRosé 15:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Characters and names in the Quran[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Characters and names in the Quran has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Debresser (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Please do not !vote more than once in this discussion; I have struck two of your three !votes. You are, however, more than welcome to discuss the matter as much as you wish. GiantSnowman 13:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
It is not a voting procedure. The Keeps and Deletes are not counted to conclude for the deletion. Every time, I have discussed something new. I have wrote the "Again" so that the vote is not counted twice! Seraj (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes it's WP:NOTAVOTE - but !voting multiple times is certainly misleading and therefore frowned upon. GiantSnowman 15:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)