User talk:Proabivouac

Archive 1

Fixing this mess

"I believe that nobody is perfect. If we have learned something it is that Islam-related articles have been a battleground between multiple parties (it includes POV pushing from both sides who lack AGF, and a tiny neutral editing). Maybe it is the right time to fix this mess."

I agree with all of this. I think the first step is to honestly acknowledge that some of us here are very into Islam in a way that alienates non-Muslim editors and that some of us are either skeptical of or hostile to Islam in a way that alienates Muslim editors, and to accept that we all have to - and should - work together despite this. We cannot wish this away. Instead, we must ask how we can channel these impulses in constructive directions. I also believe that we must stop accusing one another of being religious fanatics or bigots and correspondingly to refrain from userpage or talk posts which might used by already distrustful opposing editors to support these findings. These latter are a major cause of factionalisation and contribute little to the encyclopedia. And I believe we all must refrain from Wikilawyering, because this kills trust. I don't mean that we shouldn't refer to policy, but that we be forthcoming about our motivations in any given situation, and consistently reach out to people with whom we often disagree. The culture of this space cannot be cured by legalistic or prosecutorial measures.Proabivouac 10:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pro. I am glad to hear your message and agree with everything stated above. I think we have finally reached the core of the problem and ready to proceed.

I have a few ideas that may help us reach this objective. I'll be sending you an email very soon suggesting ways to implement them. You can give your opinion or if you already have suggestions yourselves you can email me first. I truly believe We Can Work It Out. Cheers. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 09:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This is all very encouraging. By all means, send. It may take a few days before I respond, though; my commitment level is serious but inconsistent. I've thought very long and hard about how to implement these goals and we can discuss these (along with your potentially new ideas) as long as we can agree that this exchange in all respects is confidential unless/until we both agree that it's not (to which I agree here re your first e-mail). It's a long story, actually.Proabivouac

WP:RFCN#El_chulito_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29

There is new information about this username that is relevant to the position you took in this debate, you may wish to review it. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Please check your email. --Aminz 07:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

For the barnstar. - Merzbow 18:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar and for your generous comments. If I form an exploratory committee I'll let you know;-) Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Islamic Ethics

Please see the source here [1]. --Aminz 04:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The edit-warring anon is abusing the system, and I reverted him.Proabivouac 04:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

But Karl and Arrow are edit warring too. --Aminz 04:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Arrow is active on the discussion page, and Karl at least sometimes talks. This only time anon, who has been edit-warring on a number of articles, had anything to say was at the talk page of your RfC, to helpfully point at Jews. Who do you suppose it might be?Proabivouac 06:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Please comment over there. Arrow740 06:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've put it on my watchlist. What a mess. I'll likely join the conversation at some point.Proabivouac 07:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Inadvertently deleting messages

Hey Proabivouac. Earlier today, you deleted three messages left on User talk:George Carlin [2] and two of those messages were from admins trying to respond to this user's request for help. I'm sure this happened accidentally, but please be more careful in future. Thanks, Sarah 14:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Armyrifle User Page

I'll take it down. Armyrifle 20:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Jboyler

I have blanked this page due to its inflammatory content.Proabivouac 04:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That was funny. A user keen to provoke admins instead of editing the encyclopaedia. I see he got a 7 days wikibreak enforced by an admin. Well done Pro. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 09:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. May I also ask after your opinion of my recent edits to Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi?Proabivouac 10:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine edits. I tried to fix some more stuff. The article really needs citations. Cheers. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFC/NAME

Just FYI. {Template:UsernameConcern} is up. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer.Proabivouac 23:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the Qur'an

Hi Proabivouac,

Can you please help us with this article. Arrow wants to remove ""Criticism of the science in the Qur'an is based on the assumption that the Qur'an talks about scientific issues. Many modern Muslims hold that the Qur'an does make scientific statements, however many classical Muslim commentators and scientists, notably al-Biruni, assigned to the Qur'an a separate and autonomous realm of its own and held that the Qur'an "does not interfere in the business of science nor does it infringe on the realm of science."

but Serfringle has agreed with it. Arrow says it is not topical and the first sentence"Criticism of the science in the Qur'an is based on the assumption that the Qur'an talks about scientific issues" is OR.

Can you please comment on that. --Aminz 22:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, can you please comment on this as well : "Ahmad Dallal, Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at Georgetown University, holds that due to "considerable differences in the interpretations of the verses that may have a connection to science or the natural phenomena... it is not useful to try to ascern a particular quranic position on science."[20] Those medieval Qur'an commentators who believed in the autonomy of qur'anic and religous knowledge from science justified their postion by in insisting on the possibility of multiple scientific explanation of the natural phenomena, and the ever-changing nature of science."

Thanks --Aminz 22:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look in a bit.Proabivouac 22:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Beit Or had some good edits. The only point I have now is adding reasons of those Muslims who didn't make connections between science and Qur'an. i.e. this paragraph: "Ahmad Dallal, Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at Georgetown University, holds that due to "considerable differences in the interpretations of the verses that may have a connection to science or the natural phenomena... it is not useful to try to ascern a particular quranic position on science."[20] Those medieval Qur'an commentators who believed in the autonomy of qur'anic and religous knowledge from science justified their postion by in insisting on the possibility of multiple scientific explanation of the natural phenomena, and the ever-changing nature of science." --Aminz 22:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: WP:POINT

My friend, Proabivouac,

I know you are a reasonable and knowledgable person. If I ever complain about something it is along the lines of "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect". No doubt that your presense has been useful to wikipedia. There is no point saying obvious things since, according to Shannon, they don't convey any bit of information. :) --Aminz 08:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Aminz. I feel that the atmosphere is improving almost everywhere.Proabivouac 09:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The Nation of Gods and Earths

How about this? It's sourced, but its inclusion in Allah strikes me as too marginal (and ridiculous) to merit inclusion.[3]Proabivouac 09:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I heard about it many times before. It can be classified as trivia or nowhere expect at The Nation of Gods and Earths. It is a clear false analogy. The refs used are whether opinions (i.e. Hip-hop's grim undertones) ore garbage (i.e. Akee Wise and Essence T-Shirts!!! (NEW!!!)) i just find it silly myself as well. Cheers. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Box

Hi Proabivouac,

What do you think of the box here: [4]? Cheers, --Aminz 11:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, having no idea who added that or why, I think it a way of unjustly privileging information. Magazines do this, not encyclopedias.Proabivouac 11:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Scholarly texts frequently use boxes like that. Frotz661 13:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Robert Spencer

Hi Proabivouac,

Just wondering what do you think of [5].

It is written by Professor Carl Ernst, William R. Kenan, Jr., Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies and Director of the Carolina Center for the Study of the Middle East and Muslim Civilizations University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.

Cheers, --Aminz 23:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Moon God

Hello, The cresent symbol used in muslims never has had any relation with your moon God concept. And for you kind info. People of Arab in pre-Islamic era had the concept of a supereme and absolute deity and that they called Allah. The idols they used to worship were considered the partners to that absolute deity. And even you argue on that, please have a slightly longer memory than just before the coming of Islam. You are associating Moon God theory to Muslims when their Holy book Quran refers to the incident of Prophet Abraham as:

[extensive quotes removedProabivouac 06:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)]

What lame theories you are associating to the pre-Islamic era??? And also strengthening the POV of the people who think Allah is the name of Moon God. Why???

VirtualEye 06:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You have the wrong editor: I deleted the material about which you rightly complain.[6] You can help keep this nonsense out of the article by removing it when it appears again.Proabivouac 06:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, sorry, I observed the comment which you gave at your edit. Misunderstood.

And thanks for your understanding. VirtualEye 06:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The mystery

Proabivouac, what do you think of Etymology of Isa? [7]. I am reading various theories from Encyclopedia of the Qur'an but before editing I wanted to know what you think :P Cheers, --Aminz 08:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hint: It is hard! :) --Aminz 08:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the scholars are puzzled. I'll edit the article soon. --Aminz 08:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad/Mediation

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I do strive to keep Wikipedia neutral. However, I have been trying to deal with one editor, VirtualEye (I see above that you two have already met). I really do believe that he has a wealth of knowledge in this subject matter, but is not expressing it properly. I would appreciate any help in trying to get VirtualEye to contribute in a positive manner. Thanks, --Hojimachong^talk_con 01:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I left a note on his talk page a bit ago; I wonder if that addresses your concerns, or is there something else?Proabivouac 02:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Khaybar

I see you, like others, have massively removed sourced statements and addition from the Battle of Khaybar page, wihout explaining on the talk page. Please do so.Bless sins 04:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I certainly did address it on the talk page, as per my pledge to FayssalF. I think Watt should be included, however, the way you've done so violates due weight and isn't neutrally worded. I agree that not including his viewpoint wouldn't be neutral, either, so I'd like us to arrive to a compromise on talk. Watt's not Maududi, and I've no intention to treat him as if he were. It's a valid source, and a perspective which should be included.Proabivouac 05:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've given my opinion at the article's talkpage. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Proabivouac, thanks for the words on the latest sockpuppet's talk page but I must caution you about such messages. It'd suck to see you get blocked for such a message per WP:NLT (which is taken extremely seriously around here). Cheers. (→Netscott) 13:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no problem, and thank you for the advice.Proabivouac 02:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Another thanks

Thanks Pro for your support of my candidacy at Military history Wikiproject. Much appreciated. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this a good source?

Salam (Peace), I would like your advice. I found the following medieval book. Boy does it have A LOT of information. On wikipedia would this be considered a reliable source? Keep in mind that this book was written hundreds of years ago, reviewed by a modern scholar (the same who translated it), and had been translated into other languages. Also, keep in mind, the current version I have is not in English, though I have no problem reading it.Bless sins 17:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

al-Halabi, Nur al-Din. Sirat-i-Halbiyyah. Uttar Pradesh: Idarah Qasmiyyah Deoband. pp. vol 2, part 12, pg. 90. Translated by Muhammad Aslam Qasmi.

I don't know anything about it, but I'll try to find out.Proabivouac 02:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Khaybar

I'm sorry Proabivouac, but I find it unacceptable to keep some details but omit others from Ibn HIsham's narrative. Until we resolve this dispute, I suggest we keep al-Rabi off of the page. Bless sins 03:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You're the one who took it upon yourself to push your biased version onto the article, in spite of numerous and detailed objections on talk.Proabivouac 04:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I merely put what Ibn Hisham really says. Anyways why do you object to my version? It is complete and doesn't omit anything.Bless sins 19:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It certainly does omit things and, more to the point, spins them. I'll address it on the talk page shortly.Proabivouac 20:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

VirtualEye

I don't know about you, but I am getting pretty fed up with VirtualEye's consistent incivility. I would like to know how to best convey to him that his actions will not be tolerated. It is a problem, and is quickly deteriorating the state of discussion on Talk:Muhammad. I also smell some sock puppets;any thoughts on this? Thanks, --Hojimachong^talk_con 05:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts on Arrow740's talk page and on VirtualEye's. Hgold2000 and the anon threating us with hellfire may well be sockpuppets, or meatpuppets recruited off-wiki. At the same time, it seems possible that this individual wants the depictions to stay, and is trying to discredit the aniconistic cause (and effectively, at that.) I'm inclined to simply remove any further trollish posts of this nature; I doubt that any of the admins who've been following this increasingly ridiculous situation will have a problem with that.Proabivouac 05:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, peer review, and project-wide collaboration.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 13:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

VirtualEye

The example you gave wasn't him reiterating his old point (which is, "they are fake pictures) it was actually a call for sources. I don't particularly find his talk page edits to be helpful, but I find TharkunColl's trolling to just exacerbate the situation since it's confrontational and make our page into a clash of civlizations (although, he just did a rather useful post). Generally, most posts don't help us get to a solution. I see little need to revert most things from talk pages. So, while I don't necessarily object, I think he is being singled out moreso than he should be. I'll settle for a compromise... we can just delete the whole talk page... ~_~ --gren グレン 13:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[duplicated material from TharkunColl and VirtualEye removed]

Gren, TharkunColl's been blocked from that page before, was recently warned again, and has cleaned up his act. Though, for a number of reasons, I don't agree that the Supreme Court image belongs in the lead, his latest post is just fine. The trouble I have with VirtualEye at this point is that he is flooding the page by repeating himself ad nauseum (even if there are occasionally minor differences between his posts - and look at it, most of it was just quoting the previous one verbatim.) I completely support your, FayssalF and Tom Harrison's commitment to restore sanity to this dysfunctional talk page, which as you suggest must be done in an even-handed manner. As you observe, trolling begets trolling, both through lowering the general atmosphere and through direct provocation (again in both directions.)Proabivouac 19:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't really mean remove TharkunColl's material their :O I just tend to be very non-revisionist on what has already happened (thus not removing posts) but maybe more willing to set guidelines -- such as, in this discussion you must bring up references from credible sources or cite specific policies. "Giving into Muslims" or "offending Muslims" are irrelevant, more or less... but WP:NPOV#Bias "religious" bias and "sensationalism" are both likely relevant. You may be right that removal helps limit trolling--it's just not my way. I'm not so sure how we put controls on a talk page, or if that's even a good idea. gren グレン 23:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Khaybar

You all work quite effective on the article and in my opinion there is no more need to keep an eye on it. Cheers Wandalstouring 21:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[8] an AfD that might interest you. Arrow740 03:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)