Jump to content

User talk:Davidelah

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Davidelah (talk | contribs) at 08:46, 29 September 2011 (→Talk?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello, Davidelah, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing!  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Welcome

Hi, David! I know it's a bit late to the party to say so, but Welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed the dispute you've been having at Talk:Jihad, and I tried to help sort the problem a bit. I'm very sorry to have had to tell you that even though what you were saying makes good sense, it was, in my view, against policy. Sorry; please do ask at the help desk if you need further help understanding the policy. I'll keep this talk page on my watch list, too, and will try to reply here if you post a message here, but you might get a quicker response at the help desk, since I'm not online every day. Anyway, once again, sorry to have had to disappoint you about your argument. But hey, Welcome! Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

providing context

I hope with this you are not trying to present the index of the book as a reference that "the Umdat al-Salik associates the phrase with jihad". I can see the index say "see Jihad". So, what it is asking you to do is actually go and see how the phrase is discussed in the context of jihad. The index entry in itself is completely useless. It substantiates that the phrase is somehow connected with a discussion of jihad in this 14th-century text. Perhaps you are an expert on medieval Islamic jurisprudence, but I am not. I have no idea how the Umdat al-Salik conceives of the notion of jihad. What we can be certain is that it doesn't discuss modern-era jihadism. Beyond that, we would have to go and read the text, won't we? As you can learn from the jihad article, the term is simply a common noun meaning "struggle". Its Islamic sense has been the topic of learned debate for a millennium. If we are going to refer to the Umdat al-Salik in any meaningful way, we will need to provide context on what this work is saying about this problem, otherwise this is just empty pseudo-encyclopedicity. --dab (𒁳) 07:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, so googling "Umdat al-Salik", I find it is almost invariably referenced in crackpot or agenda-driven anti-Islamic literature. This means that it must have some nice soundbites in it useful for that agenda. Seeing that this is the case, we obviously need to take extra care to report on this work with some academic responsibility. I don't know if you have any experience with medieval philology. The first thing you learn about medieval literature is that it is bizarre by modern standards. Therefore, you cannot just use random tidbits of a translation of a medieval work, eastern or western, as a "reference". You need to consult secondary academic literature. I have no problem with reporting that the Umdat al-Salik is a major source for juicy details on medieval notions of violent "lesser jihad", and perhaps that it even serves as an inspiration for modern jihadists, but this will need to be based on WP:RS, not on some index entry you found on amazon.com preview. My impression from google is that the work primarily serves as ammunition for cranky Islam-bashing literature, not for cranky Islamist literature, but that impression can of course be modified by quality references. --dab (𒁳) 07:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dab
I actually got the index reference secondarily from an academic source, who is an expert on medieval Islamic jurisprudence in this article, that also explains a little how it is used in the book, so this is the closest thing you can get for clarification by now. Should this article be used for reference instead then? And I think that "Umdat al-Salik" is often used for reference by critical analysts of Islam because it was recently endorsed by major authorities of Islamic teachings. So it is not "crackpots" who thinks this is a reliable manual. It is also widely used on Islamic websites that are not considered "extremist," for example here, and you can also see on the same site how it defines jihad.
Regarding the wikipedia jihad article, I don't think it uses the most common description of the term "jihad" as found in dictionaries and encyclopedia, for example here and here. Best regards Davidelah (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2011

Please refrain from changing genres without providing a source and without establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. Your contributions are always welcomed and appreciated; however, you should be careful about your limited knowledge (Wikipedia Bias) in the Islamic articles you edit. When you're not sure about something, you can ask on the talk page for more experienced editors in the topic, like in Taqiyya. Nonsense criticism has it's own separate articles, so feel free to spread your sources, including the non-credible authors' point of views, there. Hope to see you around :) AdvertAdam talk 21:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly do not understand this message. So you are you gonna address my point in the discussion page on zakat or not? Do you, or, what makes you think that for example sunnipath.com is non-credible? Hope you will come back to this ;) Davidelah (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, you always make me laugh David... frankly speaking, it's a warning to stop bias disruptive editing in Islamic articles! Don't take it personally. I just want to save my time, your time, and other editors' time too. Consider it a reminder to review the Wikipedia's Bias above. It's better to open a discussion first when editing a topic you have limit knowledge about. Regarding the Zakat, you can open a discussion on its talkpage if you dispute my revert, but I know the results anyways. Oh, and most important is your questioning about credibility. Beware that credibility is not based on the source alone, but even the author and publisher, as explained here.
Just a quick personal advice, FYI. I just wanted to confirm to you that the Qur'an and Hadith is the only strong law for Muslims. Any scholar that writes against them is automatically invalid, as you can find tons of opposite sources that are based on the Qur'an. Therefore, if yourself want to make sure of something (for personal knowledge), you can review your source of Ibn Alkathier--he's very nice. However, your problem on our earlier dispute is that you just read one verse, which is wrong; you need to read at-least three versus before and three versus after, to get the full meaning. It's just an advice to keep you out of meaningless discussions. For example, when a scholar encourages for violence, you'll find that less than 1% follow him and less than another 1% listen to him. Thefore, those 2% definitely do not represent the 1.6billion population. You can asking about any Islamic or non-Islamic topic here on your talk-page, but write my name on the summary to get my attention. See you around, wish you luck, and happy editing :) AdvertAdam talk 08:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You raise some very interesting points in you response. You say for example that, it's better to open a discussion first when editing a topic, which is actually what I did in the zakat article some time ago, if you just go to the discussion page. I don't know what your own knowledge is, as far as this topic goes, but I think that this objection isn't valid since I actually did what you say here.
As for the personal advice, I actually didn't quote just one verse, I quoted Ibn Kathir's, and Al-Suyuti's explanation of the meaning of Quranic verses, so they would be responsible for misinterpreting and taking things out of context. And I will again remind you that, we are not talking about whether people actually are able, or even willing, to follow religious teachings. Davidelah (talk) 09:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You just caught me before I head to sleep. My advice was for all sensitive topics in general, as you know that I reverted three of your edits today. I just added Zakat to my watch-list today, so I haven't seen the talkpage for that article yet. I'll follow-up your discussion early morning, so it will be settled there. I still know the results anyways :p
I just said so for your personal information, not your edits. However, Ibn Alkatheir doesn't explain topics in the Qur'an, it only explain the sole verse. So you need to check-out the surrounding verses to understand the certain advice, story, or teaching. Take care AdvertAdam talk 09:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps your warning is a little premature since you didn't check my previous raised discussion? Keep in touch Davidelah (talk) 10:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consider it a reminder to reread those policies, especial the biasness rules. Your Zakat edit summary didn't mention the discussion, and I was mentioning two other articles too. So, my reminder is still valid... Happy editing AdvertAdam talk 12:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Adamrce is going out of line, removing properly referenced content. he should immediately be suspended by an admin in my opinion--Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever you see suitable for the readers and Wikipedia. AdvertAdam talk 12:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to Zakat, without providing a source and without establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Again, please respect the discussion page and don't make edits on your-own. Thanks and Happy Editing ~ AdvertAdam talk 06:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't wait to give me more warnings, can you Adam? What makes you think that I edited without providing a reliable source? You didn't claim that in the discussion page. As anyone can see, I edited what represented both point of views from the discussion, because we were discussing the different interpretations. Let me present to you what the first message is when you join wikipedia: Don't be afraid to edit – anyone can edit almost every page, and we are encouraged to be bold! I'm sorry to say that I find this warning (and the previous one) completely unfounded and against the spirit of wikipedia. I don't know how important these warnings are but if this one is not retracted I will ask an admin to explain how it can be possible. Davidelah (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: By assuming good faith, I'll take that as a compliment, instead of a threat. You're free to remove whatever you want from your talkpage, but I won't. Don't take it personally and just consider it a reminder. I'm giving you a chance to reread the policies you're missing to be able to work together smoothly. We're all here to help improve the lovely Wiki, as one team.
You said so. It's when you first start editing. When a new user (not an editor with 145 edits, like you) makes a mistake,he gets reverted with a nice welcome screen with Wiki's policies to review and understand. Ignoring, or not reading, the policies don't make you anywhere more special than other editors that're trying to improve Wikipedia. I'm not talking about myself, but the other users that supported my decisions on those articles, too. Wikipedia is not a Democracy nor Bureaucracy. We're not the only users on those pages, but others are just watching and know when to interfere. Again, please don't take it personally and happy editing... See you around ~ AdvertAdam talk 07:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

invitation

you are invited to comment.

Everyone interested in this admin intervention discussion. please go here and post your opinions if you like. i want to end this arguing once in for all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Censorship_of_Islam_related_articles_by_Adamrce

some tips

i have recently been banned for edit warring, i urge you not to get involved it edit wars with users who wont comprimise, take it to the admins. its better than getting banned

if you revert 3 edits within 24 hours you will get automatically banned, so watch out !

as for the "apostasy in islam" article where you referenced bbc, , you added the word "all", that is a BIG, NO NO, on wikipedia.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I should perhaps have added that the "all" part was the opinion of someone in the referred article. Davidelah (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to explain anything anymore!

Listen David, we've been debating in many Islamic articles because of your unawareness of Islam and its principles. I've sent you Wikipedia's policy of bias edits tons of times with no progress. Please save your-time and mine by investing five minutes to read the Islamic Manual of Style, especially its RS section. Again, keep it official from now-on, as I won't explain anything further. Let us stick with policies, as I see no other options. ~ AdvertAdam talk 07:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will start by saying I reject the premise about the unawareness of Islam and its principles, also because I usely don't make claims without applying references from authoritative scholars and sources. But of course I will take a look at guidelines whatever the premise is. Take care. Davidelah (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AdamRce, why dont you just tell DavidElah that you think his edits are "lies", is that so hard? Ask any admin, there is no such thing as "the 1 and only truth" on wikipedia, only we add to wikipedia what a reliable source says about the truth, regardless if it is a lie from your view point.

@Davidelah, I think the only way to deal with AdamRce (if you feel he is being a dick), is to just get a third opinion or admin involved (go here) . They can judge who is right and wrong, your life will be so much easier. No need to engage in endless debates --Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice and support Misconceptions2, I appreciate it. I think I will continue to advice AdamRce that he should just provide better sources for his pov, and not just claiming to know the truth, as you say. Davidelah (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at Zakat, you may be blocked from editing. You've been provided WP:BRD many times before to read, so please don't make edits on a topic that is under-discussion. A 3-day wait doesn't mean consensus, so please respect the two editors that disputed your POV. Thanks and happy editing. ~ AdvertAdam talk 06:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see your doing the same thing you did in the Jihad article. Claim their is a dispute, knowing the dispute will never be settled because you wont compromise. Only one way to sort this mess--Misconceptions2 (talk) 09:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop making fabricated claims. There was a dispute and two editors were against him, so he shouldn't-have added the same content again! Anyways, I'm only suppose to answer his concerns here, not yours. ~ AdvertAdam talk 12:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Adam. You reverted three edits I made, relating to a discussion on the talk page to the Zakat article and I feel a need to distinguish between them. How prevalent the interpretation of the seventh recipient of zakat, has not been disputed by other users, and since May 29 that has not been disputed at all after I added a new source to back the original one up with. There was no dispute with other users about the “mostly”-part, not applying to modern Southeast Asia. My original edit that included both pov, which was reverted and I also got a warning, was agreed to by the other user, so I naturally didn't assume there was a dispute with them. The only debate was about whether Ummah connotes an Muslim identity. Also I think that some of the reverts have not been handled as good as they could have been, so let me present some guidelines that I don't think have been upheld satisfactorily:
Based on the rather inaccurate presumptions about the other two editors and that the revert of edits with references, and even a warning, is serious when I really participated in the discussion with sources, gave answers that got to the point and exercised some patience (for 3-days), you might reconsider your stance on this issue or give some explanations to my objections. I hope we can sort this out without bringing in a WP:Third opinion. Davidelah (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained to you before to not take it personally, and I hope that it stays that way :). I'm a WikiGuide and help a lot of newcorners, so the only reason I explain things to you in-detail is for your benefit (not to discourage you). We've known each-other for sometime, so I'm treating you that way. We may agree and disagree about things, but that's all for the benefit of the readers. A little silence don't really mean agreement, but probably that the other editors didn't have a chance to reply (or looking for content to reply with). I've been away for 3 days, so I'm barely catching up with the users I support and my watchlist. I'll probably reply about the discussion regarding the article on its talkpage tomorrow.
I'm mostly concerned here about policies, for your-own benefits, so I did give you details with the template (to not confuse you). Editing within BRD is what we did in the beginning, if you remember fixing the sentencing together; however, repeating related disputed content is not allowed within BRD and is considered edit-warring and ignoring the discussion (even if you replied then edited). You can see my activities and some tips on my userpage. Absolutely, if we get stuck there we can call a WP:3O anytime.
We'll be in-touch there, so happy editing. ~ AdvertAdam talk 07:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope my reply wasn't personal, but an explanation of the situation and what concerned me about guidelines. I may have learned more since I began having longish discussions on the talk pages with you, and I already got warning templates early for making edits - with references. But I still don't/didn't know many policy guidelines, so it is difficult to get warning templates that I don't know is justified or not, and it has been hard to get in-depth with guidelines to find out. I don't think this is helpful for new users. And let's be honest it were us who had a real dispute, and it is not recommended to give warnings to users whom oneself is involved in a disputed - and newcomers. I repeat that the other users did not dispute most of my edits and I thought one actually agreed with my original edit. And can you explain how you can justify the "no consensus" reason when policy doesn't recommend it. About the BRD, I think that when I edited after we had a discussion, and included sources from both POVs, and another user agreed to my edit, I would think that was in line with BRD. I feel I am repeating myself so please address the issues I have with the justification for the warning and reverts, thanks.
The WP:3O would be to resolve this dispute about giving warnings. Davidelah (talk) 09:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, your reply was fine; I just meant by personal as not relating the templates with our dispute. You can see on my userpage that I'm in the warning giving project, so I do give them whenever I see a violation (weather I'm involved or not). We've all been in the same shoe, and even admins came to Wikipedia with no knowledge of policies. Warnings, with some details, aren't a type of threat; but a way to show newcorners how to follow policies. They don't affect your account or credibility (like a DMV record), while you're even allowed to delete them whenever you want (except if you're blocked, you can't remove the block template). My main concern here was about your Ummah edit, as two users disagreed with you and you added it back for the third-time (the same way). I know that you now understood that 3-days are not enough to consider your comment consensus.
It's not a bog deal. I reverted your edit and gave you a warning. You admitted and asked for explaination. I explained till you got the point, and consider that you won't repeat it again. We're both happy and satisfied! So, that's the point behind these warning. Happy editing. You can request for a WP:3O if you're not satisfied with my answer, or I can bring one if you want. ~ AdvertAdam talk 10:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have to admit I'm not satisfied, because I still feel this warning (and the second and perhaps the first) is not justified and has a very slim basis for reasons I have tried to explain. I will also add that the ummah edit was supported by a reliable source, an encyclopedia, and this was not met with other reliable sources and remember that the quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. I think that we are not going to agree about the warnings, where the line is or what is acceptable, so I wish to have this evaluated by another user. I got advice that this would be better to have resolved in the WP:WQA. Davidelah (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidElah, please just take this to an admin. AdamRce will just keep removing referenced data from wikipedia because he just doesnt agree with it. I even have collected evidence for this, and can help you in an amdin dispute (also, many admins ar not willing to discuss Islam related articles, if they wont bother helping, then i think you should contact Jimbo Wales, founder of wikipedia, he has his own wikipage and does respond. If he is not going to help, we are hopeless. Many admins i talked to just dont want to discuss Islam)--Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 GA on hold No need to explain further after the opened claim. We can wait for it to settle. ~ AdvertAdam talk 01:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth noting that A's warnings of blocks are spurious William M. Connolley (talk) 10:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WQA

archive your sources

many websites go offline after a couple of years, so after maybe 2 years all your edits on wikipedia may be deleted as the source might end up being a dead link (if it is a website), so it might be a good idea to archive them, you can do that here:

http://www.webcitation.org/archive.php

here i have archived Muslim brotherhood's website for you:

http://www.webcitation.org/5zcHroZ45

and have added a link to the archive on the Offensive Jihad article, if you used that source anywhere else, pelase use the archive as an alternate source --Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's a great tool. - Davidelah (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Improper tagging

Please read each tag's usage and procedure before using them, to avoid improper tagging. Thanks and happy editing... ~ AdvertAdam talk 06:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What improper tagging did he do? As a side note, please look at yourself, the many tags you added to Caravan Raids, Offensive Jihad, Zakat, which have ALL been removed for good reasons by various users. The "by whom" tag you added to the offensive Jihad article after the "names" of the scholars , was by far the most hilarious tags you added, the source clearly verified the statements or belief of those people, and was not taken out of context. The source was even a Muslim source! --Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that's right, now that you mention it. Is this more hypocrisy from Adamrce? Although at least one of my tags was probably not correct, though I tried to explain what I meant in the summary and with a note in the tags. But now I have found where they're all described, so maybe I can find a better one to address the issue. - Davidelah (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't talking to you. ~ AdvertAdam talk 06:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to add any apologetic work to your own website, but this is Wikipedia, and I'm going to remove your insertion very soon if the reliability of that source is not confirmed. - Davidelah (talk) 10:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reliability is clear (A respected academic publisher), while more experienced users re-added your removal. If you're the only one that is challenging the sources, then WP:RSN is where source experts are. They decide, not you. Take it there and prove me wrong! There's nothing more to explain. ~ AdvertAdam talk 21:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and btw, what you call "my own website" is an academic paper and was published in my University's library. However, according to WP:COI, I can't use the content here. Happy editing... ~ AdvertAdam talk 21:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for judging you based on previous edits and not taking much attention, using a self-publisher that "also published academic works" and is selective when it comes to authors. Anyways, I'm puling the source back and added another source instead. Just re-clarifying that it's all a general belief and never claimed that it's a fact. ~ AdvertAdam talk 06:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's alright, maybe I'll get back to that article but I think it's better now. - Davidelah (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is an awful lot of twaddle here from A. I've removed the ref added to Qurn and Islam, which is clearly not "A respected academic publisher". Do we have a new Jagged in A? I hope not William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@William, you should see this (is quite funny) . starting write at the end, where it says "You are indeed abusing sources" , he added a source to back the view he added to Zakat, when the source said the exact opposite of what he added--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zakat Dispute resolution by admins

A Wp:DRN has been opened, in which you may be involved. You added a sentence "By consensus of the jurists, as a general rule, the recipient must be a Muslim" (i am assuming ?) to the Zakat article that is now in dispute at WP: Dispute Resolution Noticeboard , i hope the DRN can be resolved without problems --Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have been following the dispute from the start. Personally I think it's very hypocritical of AdamRce to issue disputes on ANI against another user, claiming that they never listen, when he himself never does in - my opinion. I'll take a look and maybe help it to get resolved. - Davidelah (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using youtube as a source

Please read this , probably any youtube sources you add will be deleted so long as you can not prove its authentic. Maybe you should consider proving that the person in the video is indeed bernard lewis in the "Assalamu Alaikum" article? and mention the proof in the reference--Misconceptions2 (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, got it. Btw, I found the original video here I think, but it doesn't work, for me at least, at the moment. The YouTube video seems to be uploaded from a website associated with the same organisation, here. - Davidelah (talk) 12:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

be careful

I notice you just removed some content al-Andalusi has added. Well i suggest that you dont get involved in an edit war with him, as me and him have both been involved in one, and the admins are thinking of banning us (well i was the one who suggested they should ban both of us until were able to compromise). But watch out, if he does participate in an edit war, you should report it at the edit war noticeboard before 3 reverts.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, for the advice. I have been reading some more policy guidelines so I don't waste so much time in editing and discussion in the future and I hope any dispute I might get involved in will get resolved more smoothly. Davidelah (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk?

I know someone who would like to talk to you, but you don't have email enabled. Could you mail me - wmconnolley(at)gmail.com - and I'll pass it on William M. Connolley (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just enabled my email. I should maybe write on my user page when I'm taking a break. But thanks for noticing me about this, if it's still relevant. --Davidelah (talk) 08:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Davidelah&oldid=453017748"