Jump to content

User talk:Coercorash

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Muslim Editor (talk | contribs) at 15:53, 12 August 2010 (→Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

interwiki title=Enwp is home, of course.

editcount title=...and counting.

This User is academicaly busy,so he may not respond you immediately,but feel free to contact.

Welcome to Wikipedia Your creation at 10:20, 2 October 2009 of this page included a reference name, <ref name="ww4report.com"/>, that is causing a cite error. Can you go back and fix the error? 75.69.0.58 (talk) 08:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah

Thank you very much for removing Original research.I have been thinking about the same thing.but I could not fix how much portion can be considered as original research and should be removed.Again Good work.BestMax Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 15:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barelvi

If you have a problem with the Barelvi please discuss it on the talk page as I have asked you to do so many times instead of doing a mass revert. In particular, you can't just remove statements for which a clear reference to a reliable source has been provided. Let's talk it out instead of getting in to another edit war. Because last time you ended up forcing the page to be locked. Let's avoid that. --Urduboy (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your ongoing personal attacks and offensive slurs

I find it alternately annoying and hilarious that you've worked up this conspiracy that I'm a Hindu out to somehow undermine the Barelvi cause. I'm not Hindu, not Indian, never been to India or Pakistan. I just don't like people trying to use Wikipedia as a propaganda mouthpiece for their political, religious, or ethnic group, rather than neutrally present the subject. I suggest you refrain from randomly speculating about other user's motives, particularly since you go out of your way to announce your own biases. Further recommend you refer to people and ideas by their actual academic names instead of slurs, and refrain from conspiracy theories wherein the entire world cares so much about your regional disputes that everyone is somehow out to get you. From the opposite side of the planet, the Barelvi vs. Deobandi argument is an issue of unemotional academic interest, and that's how it needs to stay on Wikipedia. MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you have told yourself on Talk:Barelvi/Archive 1 and/or Talk:Barelvi/Archive 2 long ago that you are a hindu.And no-one can prove that the word hindu is an "offensive slur". Don't you have anything to do instead of pushing you PoV On barelvi , accusing me/other neutral editors of our what you call non-neutral PoV!And why are you responding to it if you think it hilarious?
I just don't like people trying to use Wikipedia as a propaganda mouthpiece for their political, religious, or ethnic group(as you are using it for support of wahabism and your PoV), rather than neutrally present the subject. I suggest you refrain from randomly speculating about other user's motives, particularly since you go out of your way to announce your own biases(as you did in article Barelvi). Further recommend you refer to people and ideas by their actual academic names(like wahabi instead of "salafi"s) instead of slurs (like barelvi slur used for sunnis). Please see WP:NPOV and WP:NPA for more info.

CoercorashTalkContr. 11:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent) Playing the "repeat game" isn't the most mature way to address this. And note that in Discussion I said I'm not Muslim/Hindu or Indian/Pakistani, as in none of the aforementioned. The point being that I have no personal connection to any of the factions in South Asia, and your personal quarrels aren't of any emotional importance to me. Yet again, I have continually explained specifically what is objectionable about your version of Barelvi, and all you have done for a month is make vague accusations of wahabism, which in all honesty appears to mean nothing to you except "stuff I don't like" rather than actually identifying a particularly ideology. I challenge you to actually provide evidence of my pushing a given POV, much less a "wahabish", "hindu", or "pegan" [sic] one on that page. I'm not "Wahabbi", I'm not even Muslim or Hindu, so why on earth would I have some sort of conspiracy against the Barelvi? Honestly, it appears you just want an article saying that your group is better than every other group, and you consider any deviation from that stance to be "biased", regardless of how clearly footnoted and neutrally presented. Seriously, just admit that you want an article that says that the Barelvi group is the best Muslim group in the world. MatthewVanitas (talk) 11:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not called maturity if someone is telling you about your hypocrity(without insulting you) and you are imagining it an immature game.As for your challenge,I have pointed out your wahabish-pagan PoV many many times.Even most of Barelvi article is made of your PoV.
and honestly,it's clear that pagans wants an article that says that "barelvi" is an offshoot from islam,have NOTHING to any with orthodox islam,it's followers have nothing to do with "Ahle sunnah",rather they do shirk,while "salafi" is orthodox islam,it and deobandi have "reformed" islam.Doesn't it?
Anyone who want to remove this view is considered as having non-neutral PoV and even a vandal.
Let for a moment i'm a biased editor,so what do think, all the sunnis who have objected here,here and here are biased or in a Mass hysteria??
don't you want an article upon which you wahabi friends are agreed?(I know you'll never admit it.)

CoercorashTalkContr. 17:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you call "wahabish POV" looks suspiciously like my insistence on material being footnoted to a neutral source which is neither pro- nor anti-Barelvi. If you're concerned about Paganism, why would "pagans" go around supporting Deobandi Sunni Muslims? Further, do you not see the POV involved in claiming that the Barelvi are the "most correct" Muslims? Do you not think that other Muslim groups would make the exact same claim, and the fairest way is to just point out each's claim while not taking either side? So far as the other editors who have objected (and called other people "kuffar" and "pegan"), they're primarily IPs, or editors who show a clear focus on specifically Barelvi topics, often with a significant trend to push POV such as yours. By all means, I encourage you to take this to a Wikipedia arbitration, and any group of randomly-selected editors with no vested interest in Islamic issues would most assuredly agree that your version of Barelvi is simply not acceptable, as is your frequently-expressed hostility towards other religions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't even answer these objections

  • honestly,it's clear that pagans wants an article that says that "barelvi" is an offshoot from islam,have NOTHING to any with orthodox islam,it's followers have nothing to do with "Ahle sunnah",rather they do shirk,while "salafi" is orthodox islam,it and deobandi have "reformed" islam.Doesn't it?
  • Anyone who want to remove this view is considered as having non-neutral PoV and even a vandal.
  • Let for a moment i'm a biased editor,so what do think, all the sunnis who have objected here,here and here are biased or in a Mass hysteria??
  • don't you want an article upon which you wahabi friends are agreed?(I know you'll never admit it.)

you just wanna change the topic. CoercorashTalkContr. 12:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you need to stop calling everyone who disagrees with you "pagan". Other editors who disagree with Islam aren't allowed to call you insulting names based on your religion, so the courtesy has to go both ways.
  • We can't put "X group is the true Islam" because every group would want to claim the same thing. So all we can do is give the historical and theological context of each version of Islam.
  • There is not "NPOV" way to say "X group is right and all others are wrong". That's the entire point of NPOV: it doesn't support any one given side of an argument.
  • The only "Sunnis" who've objected appear to be other editors with a vested interest in Barelvi topics. That being the case, it's not surprising that they want to add their POV to the article in order to promote a religious group in which they strongly believe.
  • I'm not even clear what the last point is supposed to mean, but I can't imagine you have any actual argument for my being a supporter of Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab. Take a look at my edits: I'm covering traditional Swedish folkmusic and the history of whaling in Argentina, for goodness sake. I think it's pretty fair to say that I cover a wide variety of subjects, and that both my content and the tone of my edits doesn't exactly exhibit an ultra-conservative Arabian perspective. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you need to stop calling everyone who disagrees with you "pagan". Other editors who disagree with Islam aren't allowed to call you insulting names based on your religion[citation needed], so the courtesy has to go both ways.
  • We can't put "X group is the true Islam" because every group would want to claim the same thing.{This policy must be applied on "salafi"} So all we can do is give the historical and theological context of each version of Islam.
  • There is not "NPOV" way to say "X group is right and all others are wrong".{I never said that} That's the entire point of NPOV: it doesn't support any one given side of an argument.{but it support "salafi"}
  • The only "Sunnis" who've objected appear to be other editors with a vested interest in Barelvi topics. That being the case, it's not surprising that they want to add their POV to the article in order to promote a religious group in which they strongly believe.

{Whoa!!!it means all these Sunnis are non-neutral And you are the king of neutralists!Strange....!!}

  • I'm not even clear what the last point is supposed to mean, but I can't imagine you have any actual argument for my being a supporter of Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab. {you support his followers' edits.} Take a look at my edits: I'm covering traditional Swedish folkmusic and the history of whaling in Argentina,{}it doesn't matter,we're discussing you PoV for goodness sake. I think it's pretty fair to say that I cover a wide variety of subjects{that's good}, and that both my content and the tone of my edits doesn't exactly exhibit an ultra-conservative Arabian perspective.{So what???you support their edits.}
These are not answers to my objections,you are just attacking me saying that i'm not neutral.Will you please answer objections instead of attacking? CoercorashTalkContr. 16:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C.I.D._(TV_series)

sorry for late reply!
I think it needs to be deleted cause it don't have any reference,there is just wp:original research.(Most of the)Article is written by fans' PoV. i think it'll be better to nominate it at AfD. What are your views? CoercorashTalkContr. 04:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah,Definately it should be nominated for AFD.I once put a speedy tag.but, it was removed by another user.So,Now you have to think.Best.Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 11:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What criteria of WP:DEL does this article meet? warrior4321 16:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it meets WP:PROD cause if we nominated it for AfD,it result will same;delete,cause it doesn't cite any reference. CoercorashTalkContr. 06:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be deleted by WP:PROD, it needs to meet some criteria of WP:DEL. Which one does it meet? warrior4321 15:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CSD#7.CoercorashTalkContr. 05:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That link is a redirect, and does not specifically tell me which criteria it falls under. There are two groups where #7 can fall under, A7 and G7 (articles and general). Since A7 is for authors requesting deletion, which you cannot do, it has to be G7. G7 states No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content). How does the article fall under this criteria. Please revisit the same page you have linked me. warrior4321 01:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. GorillaWarfare talk 15:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any idea for which incident you are "warning" me.
CoercorashTalkContr. 15:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I get the feeling there are many, but I was referring to those in the above conversation. GorillaWarfare talk 15:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it can be barelvi instead of Sunni movement,than it can be pagan,i know some people who are proud to be called as pagans.And,as per Matthew's claim that i called someone kafir/kuffar is just a PoV,I never called someone kafir here.You can check my edits. CoercorashTalkContr. 16:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not yell. Remember to act civil. warrior4321 18:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So did you heard my 'yell'?LOL!!!JK!!!.My intention was not to shout but to clarifie.CoercorashTalkContr. 01:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Using capitals is considered yelling, while virtual is still rude and inconsiderate. You have previously committed personal attacks multiple times. Remember to be civil. warrior4321 03:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care if biased editors like matthew make me look like rude,they need to read neutrality guide.Ok,i removed the capitalized sentence,i was in a funny mood while this discussion was on but you two just ruined it by spitting your anger on me. CoercorashTalkContr. 04:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not Matthew who should read that, but you. Matthew is a neutral editor who edits on many subjects. You, on the other hand have come to Wikipedia for the sole purpose to push your point of view. Your userpage had that written all over just a few days ago, before I removed the personal attacks. Don't call the kettle black. warrior4321 01:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's what called as personal attack and PoV pushing.So please refrain from it.
CoercorashTalkContr. 04:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lens flare2.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Lens flare2.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Sunni Dawat-e-Islami

A tag has been placed on Sunni Dawat-e-Islami requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ranjithsutari (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help about Aad Wagenaar

This disambiguation page gives links to two articles one of which does not exist.I want to move Aad Wagenaar (politician);the other exiting article to the title of this disambiguation page.If you are a admin,will you delet the disambig page?Or otherwise it'll take many days. And how can i nominate it for deletion?

CoercorashTalkContr. 07:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, that is a rather silly disambig page and should be deleted. I'll tag it for you in a moment. Usually, when there's only two articles we leave the more important one at the main page and add a hatnote at the top. sonia♫♪ 07:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. It seems it was created to mirror the matching page on the Dutch Wikipedia; however it is still a legitimate speedy deletion. I've tagged it. For future reference, to delete an article to make redirects, {{db-g6}} is what you're looking for. The talk page already redirects to Aad Wagenaar (politician), so no work needs to be done there- when it is moved, the redirects will swap. Thanks for your attention. sonia♫♪ 07:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!
CoercorashTalkContr. 16:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summarised answers to your objections

Again, I am still very unclear as to what objections you feel you are stating that I am failing to address. At this point I'm just going along with the game to see where it goes, but I'm not seeing any genuine interest in seeking consensus from you. I have explicitly answered each of your objections multiple times, and all you appear to do is deny my explanations without any clear reason other than to name-call "wahabi" and "pagan".

  • For the hundredth time: it is clearly POV to say "Barelvi/AhleSunnat is the correct kind of Islam". Deciding which religion is correct and which is not is not within the purview of a global encyclopedia. If you feel that another article is saying that XYZ group is the "true" Islam, please post a clear, neutral, specific (as in noting individual POV phrases) on that article's Discussion page. You've set up a strawman argument that the Barelvis are being singled out as an "offshoot" of Islam, yet note that it's not as though there's some competing group that is labeled "not an offshoot, it's the real thing" on WP, so in a way all branches of Islam are "offshoots" from an NPOV perspective.
  • I fail to see what is objectionable about the Barelvi article, unless you are noting mistakes in objective facts (i.e. so-and-so was born in 1897 vice 1893, or such-and-such fatwa has never been considered influential in XYZ community), which we all should happily correct if we can find citeable correct data.
  • You state the article accuses the Barelvis of shirk, but all I see in the article is a list of beliefs and practices that neutral sources have associated with Barelvis. If you disagree with those listings of beliefs, please provide a footnoted, academically credible source which provides a clear counter-assertion.
  • Despite your little word-games about "some people like being called pagan", you clearly understand you are using such terms derogatorily. Similarly, calling sources "hindu" or "wahabi" when they are not factually affiliated with those groups is not mature or acceptable. If an author does happen to be Hindu, you'd have to find a genuine academic objection to the neutrality of their work, not just say "hindus are wrong about barelvis" and dismiss it entirely. Similarly, unless an author is a follower of Wahhab, it's improper to label them as Wahhabi just because their accepted, published, academic research conflicts with what you personally think is the truth about your own religion. Unless you're a published scholar of religion with academic credentials and neutral peer review, your personal opinions about what the Barelvis are or are not is of zero consequence.
  • If you're going to accuse people of POV, as you so, so often do, you have to provide actual clear reasons. When I have noted your POV, I have posted specific lines on Discussion showing how your POV is expressed in articles, your reliance on footnotes from forum discussions and sectarian sites, your removal of footnoted material that criticises the Barelvi movement, your use of honorifics and subjective praise of Barelvi figures and concepts, etc. I feel that all my work has been to drag the articles into a neutral, factual, academic tone, yet you are accusing me of turning articles into "wahabi" propaganda, which is becoming increasingly inappropriate.

Okay, are these clear enough answers to your objections? If not, perhaps you are still failing to clearly lay out your objections? MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

  • For the hundredth time: it is clearly POV to say "Barelvi/AhleSunnat is the correct kind of Islam". Deciding which religion is correct and which is not is not within the purview of a global encyclopedia. If you feel that another article is saying that XYZ group is the "true" Islam, please post a clear, neutral, specific (as in noting individual POV phrases) on that article's Discussion page. You've set up a strawman argument that the Barelvis are being singled out as an "offshoot" of Islam, yet note that it's not as though there's some competing group that is labeled "not an offshoot, it's the real thing" on WP, so in a way all branches of Islam are "offshoots" from an NPOV perspective.

again you attacked me.I never said that.But you support the wahabi belief that they're the true ahle sunnat and sunni/barelvi are offshoot.

  • I fail to see what is objectionable about the Barelvi article[you con't cause you aren't an expert in the subject,so please refrain from adding your Pov in that.], unless you are noting mistakes in objective facts (i.e. so-and-so was born in 1897 vice 1893, or such-and-such fatwa has never been considered influential in XYZ community), which we all should happily correct if we can find citeable correct data.[I've given citations but you and urduboy removed calling it PoV.]
  • You state the article accuses the Barelvis of shirk, but all I see in the article is a list of beliefs and practices that neutral sources have associated with Barelvis.[your and wiki's defination of neutral sources is deferent,according to you,it's wahabi news papers/articles by wahabis.] If you disagree with those listings of beliefs, please provide a footnoted, academically credible source which provides a clear counter-assertion.

(I that did that and again you accused me Pov and removed it.)

  • Despite your little word-games about "some people like being called pagan", you clearly understand you are using such terms derogatorily. Similarly, calling sources "hindu" or "wahabi" when they are not factually affiliated with those groups is not mature or acceptable. If an author does happen to be Hindu, you'd have to find a genuine academic objection to the neutrality of their work, not just say "hindus are wrong about barelvis" and dismiss it entirely. Similarly, unless an author is a follower of Wahhab, it's improper to label them as Wahhabi just because their accepted, published, academic research conflicts with what you personally think is the truth about your own religion. Unless you're a published scholar of religion with academic credentials and neutral peer review, your personal opinions about what the Barelvis are or are not is of zero consequence.

[Will you like article about christianity having sources from Answeringchristianity.com?,no,than that what's about this.]

  • If you're going to accuse people of POV, as you so, so often do, you have to provide actual clear reasons.[haven't read my objections?] When I have noted your POV, I have posted specific lines[citation needed] on Discussion showing how your POV is expressed in articles, your reliance on footnotes from forum discussions and sectarian sites, your removal of footnoted material that criticises the Barelvi movement[where?], your use of honorifics[where?] and subjective praise of Barelvi figures[where?] and concepts[clarification needed], etc. I feel that all my work has been to drag the articles into a neutral, factual, academic tone, yet you are accusing me of turning articles into "wahabi" propaganda, which is becoming increasingly inappropriate.

you may think like this'O!I'm good editor,look how neutral the article i made,even wahabis(sorry',salafis') think it's neutral.'.But actually you are turning it into a wahabi propaganda.(MAY BE unintentionaly)

all this proves that you aren't an expert and Should refrain editing barelvi.

CoercorashTalkContr. 06:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Reply to your objections

  • You have explicitly objected to any implications that Barelvis are one of many branches of Sunni Islam, claiming that they are the only/true "Ahle Sunnah". Despite your accusations, at no point have I stated that the Wahabbis are the "correct" branch of Islam, or favoured their perspective over that of Barelvis. You still appear to have little idea what a "Wahabbi" is, instead using a very specific term as a general "it's icky and I don't like it" insult, which is really not helpful in trying to discuss serious issues of history. This is again not unlike a teenage American calling Republicans "Nazis" with little conception of what the term actually entails, politically and historically.
  • You have not attempted to add academically reputable footnotes. Your footnotes you support have been drawn from sectarian sites such as "indianmuslims.com", Barelvi sites, religious discussion forums, and other unpublished sources. The footnotes I have supported are from actual books and journals by respected publishers. Again, you're simply using the term "Wahabbi" for "anything I disagree with", as I seriously doubt you can properly pin that label onto sources such as: Gregory C. Doxlowski. Devotional Islam and Politics in British India: Ahmad Riza Khan Barelwi and His Movement, 1870-1920. The Journal of the American Oriental Society, Oct-Dec, 1999
  • You accuse me of not understanding "neutral" sources, but I have yet to see you link an actual book of any sort. When called on this issue, you lambast the entire academic community (that is, everyone except Barelvi authors) as "pegans/wahabi/hindu" [sic], showing a complete lack of understanding of neutral sources.
  • You have not, despite your claim, added proper footnotes to the Beliefs section. The footnotes you've supported are just pages from http://www.irshad-ul-islam.com/, which is not a recognised neutral, academic authority.
  • I'm baffled that you claim I haven't laid out my objections to your edits in an extremely clear fashion. They're right here on the same Discussion page you've been posting on for months: [[Talk:Barelvi#Comparison_of_old_version_of_Ahle_Sunnat_Wal_Jama.27at_and_current_Barelvi].
  • Again, your accusations of "wahabi propaganda" are inappropriate, while it is clear that your goal is to promote an extremly subjective view of the Barelvi movement. As noted in my line-by-line analysis of your attempts to edit Barelvi, you used extremely biased language in your version. By all means, please reply below and justify the following blatantly POV materials, which you failed to address when I pointed them out in Discussion:
  • Ahle Sunnat Wal Jama'ah is the The followers Sunnah of Holy Prophet Sal ALLAHu Alyhi wa Sallam and his companions radi ALLAHu Anhu (implies exclusive claim to be Mohammed's followers, and inapporiate use of honorific per WP:MOSISLAM)
  • They accept orthodox beliefer of sahaba (gramatically poor, and communicates nothing except claim to correctness)
  • are Considered as Sunnis due to their veneration of Holy Prophet Muhammad (gives no distinction from other Sunni groups)
  • Sunnis highly condemes evil innovations i.e. Innovations that harm islam. (implies that non-Barelvi practices "harm Islam")
  • Ahmad Raza Khan particularly wrote against insulters of The GOD and Prophet Sal ALLAHu Alyhi wa sallam like Maulana Ismail Dehalvi (absolutely ludicrously blatant POV, calling a competing theologian a "hater of God")
  • As Sunnis believe in Islam, they deeply condemn violence in every possible way. (Using "Sunni" to define your group despite the fact that opposing groups are also Sunni, and glossing over Barelvi involvement in sectarian violence in South Asia. The Barelvis appear, objectively, far less involved in violent acts than Deobandis, but certainly don't appear pacifist)
  • totally against the contemporary violent strategy of ghair muqallids ("those outside the tradition", a hihgly POV term to insult competing sects, and again obscures Barelvi-related violence)

Again, I am clearly laying out my objections, and all you do is continue to call me a "wahabi" and refuse to give any concrete examples of how I am "biased". How can I make any progress in this Discussion? MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:above

  • You have not, despite your claim, added proper footnotes to the Beliefs section. The footnotes you've supported are just pages from http://www.irshad-ul-islam.com/, which is not a recognised neutral, academic authority.

[I didn't added that.]

  • Ahle Sunnat Wal Jama'ah is the The followers Sunnah of Holy Prophet Sal ALLAHu Alyhi wa Sallam and his companions radi ALLAHu Anhu (implies exclusive claim to be Mohammed's followers, and inapporiate use of honorific per WP:MOSISLAM)
  • They accept orthodox beliefer of sahaba (gramatically poor, and communicates nothing except claim to correctness)
  • are Considered as Sunnis due to their veneration of Holy Prophet Muhammad (gives no distinction from other Sunni groups)
  • Sunnis highly condemes evil innovations i.e. Innovations that harm islam. (implies that non-Barelvi practices "harm Islam")
  • Ahmad Raza Khan particularly wrote against insulters of The GOD and Prophet Sal ALLAHu Alyhi wa sallam like Maulana Ismail Dehalvi (absolutely ludicrously blatant POV, calling a competing theologian a "hater of God")
  • As Sunnis believe in Islam, they deeply condemn violence in every possible way. (Using "Sunni" to define your group despite the fact that opposing groups are also Sunni, and glossing over Barelvi involvement in sectarian violence in South Asia. The Barelvis appear, objectively, far less involved in violent acts than Deobandis, but certainly don't appear pacifist)
  • totally against the contemporary violent strategy of ghair muqallids ("those outside the tradition", a hihgly POV term to insult competing sects, and again obscures Barelvi-related violence)
  1. I didn't knew that what the hll was WP:MOSISLAM,Can you find any "Biased" sentence in my newer edits of barelvi?

  2. totally against the contemporary violent strategy of ghair muqallids ("those outside the tradition", a hihgly POV term to insult competing sects, and again obscures Barelvi-related violence

)

how funny!ghair muqallid means the one who does not follow any madhab,you don't even know the definations of simple words,that's why i told you to refrain from editing Islamic articles!

CoercorashTalkContr. 11:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

  • I didn't added that
You most certainly restored it, removing cited academic text to add Irshad links here: [1].
Ignorance of WP:MOS isn't an excuse, particularly as that MOS was repeatedly referenced in edit summaries and on the Talk page, which you happily ignored in order to removing.peganish claims and wahabi PoV.
  • how funny!ghair muqallid means the one who does not follow any madhab,you don't even know the definations of simple words,that's why i told you to refrain from editing Islamic articles!
You're clearly using it in a derogatory sense here, so this is the same as your coy game of "some people like being called 'pagan'" to justify your use of "pagan" as a slur against other editors and academics. So far as my qualifications, I fail to see how my usage of academic sources to illustrate religious points is inferior to your uncited claims, or citations to internet forums. If you have useful knowledge on religious topics, it'd be better to use that to inform the public rather than simply add biased edits accusing everyone of being "wahabi".
  • Can you find any "Biased" sentence in my newer edits of barelvi?
Sure, your most recent edits of 12 July have a few good ones, though not as many as your usual edits:
  • You needlessly insert the phrase "deobandis claim" at the start of actual cited sentences, implying that the author is either a Deobandi or is quoting Deobandis, which is not the case.
  • You, yet again, removed clearly footnoted text regarding Mohammad being considered "nur rather than bashar" and substitute in "noori bashar" with a bunch of non-academic Irshad footnotes, as well as removing quite a few other clearly footnoted examples of beliefs with no explanation.
  • You, yet again after multiple warnings, continue to use the term "Qadian" rather than the academically recognized term "Ahmadiyya", even deleting parentheses mentioning both terms for clarity.
  • You, yet again, removed examples of Barelvi-related violence to focus only on attacks in which the Barelvis were solely the victim and not themselves involved in violence.
  • You removed a solid seven academic and neutral books from the References list with no explanation.
  • You continue to label anything you don't like as peganish claims and wahabi PoV with no justification.
  • I note you have no reply for the lengthy list of your biased editing from previous edits. Does that mean you concur that your additions were inappropriate?
In short, your edits to Barelvi have been uniformly destructive, biased, and have often been phrased in a very offensive manner to include slurs against other religious groups. If you are not able to set aside your personal biases while editing religious articles, you should refrain from editing them so that uninvolved editors, or those able to set aside their biases in order to share academically credible information, can edit without interference. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

  • You, yet again, removed clearly footnoted text regarding Mohammad being considered "nur rather than bashar" and substitute in "noori bashar" with a bunch of non-academic Irshad footnotes, as well as removing quite a few other clearly footnoted examples of beliefs with no explanation.
It's your misunderstanding about the references which you call academic,those references are not right.I added references from hadith,but you removed it calling primary source,so what's your problem??No one believes Prophet Muhammad as just Noor or just basher,he is Noori basher,reduction of either word changes the meanings.
  • You, yet again after multiple warnings, continue to use the term "Qadian" rather than the academically recognized term "Ahmadiyya", even deleting parentheses mentioning both terms for clarity.
Academicaly,they never have been recognised as ahmadis.Rather they're known as qadiani both personaly and officially.That's your original research.BTW do you feel so much pain if they're known from their place of origin and you yourself enjoys calling sunnis as barelvis!
  • You, yet again, removed examples of Barelvi-related violence to focus only on attacks in which the Barelvis were solely the victim and not themselves involved in violence.
The violance was done by a worker of Sunni Tehreek.It better suits on article Sunni Tehreek.It would have been just like adding an incident of a Republican killing someone of rival party to the article about christinaty.
  • You removed a solid seven academic and neutral books from the References list with no explanation.
you would have added it instead of crying on my name.
  • You continue to label anything you don't like as peganish claims and wahabi PoV with no justification.
Unlike you,i know how wahabi/pagan write and whenever i called something wahabi/pegan PoV,I provided references from authentic sources.
  • I note you have no reply for the lengthy list of your biased editing from previous edits. Does that mean you concur that your additions were inappropriate?
about which you are talking about?
  • In short, your edits to Barelvi have been uniformly destructive, biased, and have often been phrased in a very offensive manner to include slurs against other religious groups. If you are not able to set aside your personal biases while editing religious articles, you should refrain from editing them so that uninvolved editors, or those able to set aside their biases in order to share academically credible information, can edit without interference.
Same goes to you.Stop personaly attacking editors by calling them ignorant and biased,stop calling counter-Quraan counter-Hadith , wahabi books as academics if you are editing Islamic articles,and most of all don't edit (Specially Islamic) articles ,about which you don't know,nor do pretend to be an expert,while you aren't!

CoercorashTalkContr. 10:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

You have yet to show any "expertise" in Islamic issues, preferring instead to submit original research based on your personal views. Yet again, you are not qualified to conduct hadith analysis on Wikipedia. You have to find an academic source which states "X group understands Y hadith to mean the following...". You can't just say "We Sunnis know that X hadith means Y, so the other groups are wrong."

In addition:

  • about which you are talking about?
I'm referring to the lengthy list of completely unacceptable phrases from your personal version of Barelvi. Do you not admit that "against insulters of The GOD and Prophet" is completely unacceptable language?
  • stop calling counter-Quraan counter-Hadith , wahabi books as academics
If you refuse to accept academic works as citeable, preferring instead to use sectarian fansites, what on earth are you doing on Wikipedia? Do you think that the wider community supports your rejecting all scholarship from people with actual PhDs in religion, in order to support what Coercorash think is "the real truth about Barelvis"?
  • Unlike you,i know how wahabi/pagan write and whenever i called something wahabi/pegan PoV,I provided references from authentic sources
That is again a ridiculous claim. You are continuing to use other religious terms in a derogatory fashion, which is totally unacceptable. Plus you, despite your claimed knowledge, display no understanding of Wahabbi (or Pagan, for that matter) theology other than "I don't like it so I'll call it a name."

Neutral editors, or practically anyone outside of your small circle of supporters who share your biases, will not be convinced by your arguments. MatthewVanitas (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atleast Coercorash gives more neutral references that you without any change in original text.You likes to change the text so that it'll have negative meaning.You can celebrate your dominance on wikipedia but can't beat muslims offline,not in number of believers either.
Contribs Muslim Editor Talk 15:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sunni Dawat-e-Islami

The article Sunni Dawat-e-Islami has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Other than it's own site, a Google search shows this is not notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. warrior4321 01:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This can't be a reason for deletion.I got 27200 results when searched for Sunni Dawat-e-Islami,most of which are not from it's website.It's also on scribd,it have it's channel on youtube,and there are about 1850 search results on youtube
I got 27200 results when searched for Sunni Dawat-e-Islami,most of which are not from it's website.
Other than the first two or three, the other results do not involve the subject group. A Google Book search shows not even one result related to the topic.
It's also on scribd,it haveit's channel on youtube,and there are about 1850 search results on youtube
Youtube, Scribd and other social networking and video uploading sites are not reliable sources. warrior4321 04:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and how google search became a "reliable source"?? CoercorashTalkContr. 04:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't. Google search is used to determine the verifiability of a subject/topic. See WP:V for more information. warrior4321 04:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Than,Please specify about which you are discussing about,notablity or verifiablity?You seems confused in yourself. CoercorashTalkContr. 04:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, if you even bothered to read WP:N, the second sentence states that verifiability determines if a topic should have it's own article or not. One's a guideline, the other is a policy, but they are pretty much about the same thing. warrior4321 05:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So it can't be deleted as it give 27200 results on Google search. CoercorashTalkContr. 05:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it can, as those results other than the creator's website and some fan made do not relate to the subject. Furthermore, there are no reliable sources. Look at the Google Books search link I gave you, and notice how it gives zero results related to the subject. warrior4321 05:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to read that again,because it's written nowhere that article should have any search result or it'll be deleted.I accept it lack 3rd party references but it can't be deleted for that.read this;An article can't be deleted just because it does not appear on google books. CoercorashTalkContr. 05:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong! Did you even read WP:V? It seems like you didn't read it at all. WP:V states If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Since you have admitted and stated that there are no third party references, will you restore the WP:PROD or shall I take this to WP:AFD? By the way, the link you have sent me is wrong, I did not speedy delete this. I had put a PROD tag, so what's the purpose in sending me the criteria for speedy deletion? warrior4321 05:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok than.I added references from Most circulating english daily of the word:Times of India,and i think it fulfils the conditions. 'CoercorashTalkContr. 08:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, not yet. Look at WP:CLUB. Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources. (In other words, they must satisfy the #Primary criteria, above.) The article from TOI does not follow all the guidelines at WP:ORG. Frankly, I've almost had enough. Either bring the sources and fix the article, or restore the PROD or am I going to AFD. warrior4321 12:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what does multiple mean?If yes than you'll be happy(or sad) to know that it cite multiple independant,reliable,third-party source.
CoercorashTalkContr. 10:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


(deindent) The citations of any real consequence are still entirely from SDI's own website. Then you have one footnote from a dicsussion board (not a reliable source), and then one link of text and one link of pics from a single reputable newspaper, which say almost nothing except "this club exists and has a meeting" and another link that shows a few photographs. That does not meet the standards set by WP:CLUB. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion has to be at the articles talk Page. So please move this section to articles_talk page.-Ranjithsutari (talk) 07:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help about subtitution

Following templat doesn't substitute: {{subst:The AFC Barnstar|For helping wikipedia by creating thousands of articles.}}

note that i've seen the preview,the problem was the same

I think it doesn't have the "The" in front of it, nor the capital B. So it would be a substitution of {{AFC barnstar}}. Is that what you wanted? sonia♫♪ 11:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes!It is.
CoercorashTalkContr. 13:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Sunni Dawat-e-Islami, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. If the problem is still continuing please don't remove the tampletes Ranjithsutari (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

Misuse of templet

What are the warning templates for user who misuse template?

Take a look at WP:UW. —Mikemoral♪♫ 05:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where?CoercorashTalkContr. 06:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much!
CoercorashTalkContr. 18:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subpage deletion

What's the right template to delete own subpage? CoercorashTalkContr. 05:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CSD. {{db-u1}}, I believe. —Mikemoral♪♫ 05:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help about wikipedia terms

{{helpme}} Are redirects of terms used on wikipedia to the their respective project pages acceptable?

Eg.,The term userbox/es is used only on wikipedia,it'll be OK if i redirect Userbox or Userboxes to Wikipedia:Userboxes?

CoercorashTalkContr. 06:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't. As in, thanks for asking first, but if you tried, you'd find that both have been previously deleted and create-protected. You could start an WP:RfC on whether that consensus still stands, but those have been discussed extensively previously. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coercorash&oldid=378554571"