User talk:BhaiSaab/A6

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

Archives


1 2 3 4 5

Your note[edit]

Hi BhaiSaab, nice to meet you. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya[edit]

Islami reverted it again, i reverted him. He simply can not stand to see any facts that contradict his favored view.

Salams[edit]

Assalaamo Aleikum, Regarding your e-mail. I think its a good idea! Allah Hafiz.--Irishpunktom\talk 15:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Shiva's Trident/Hkelkar[edit]

I think there is enough evidence here for something to be done about Hkelkar, but I think you should present your case to WP:RFAr. It seems to be time for some actual enforcable sanctions. Dmcdevit·t 19:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop engaging in verbal tussles with Hkelkar. If you have disputes to solve, it would be better to prepare your case for ArbCom as recommended above. Taunting and bickering is considered disruptive and may get you blocked. Thanks --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 20:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your Name[edit]

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say. TewfikTalk 22:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I am still quite confused. TewfikTalk 22:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you could have found out what religion (if any) I might adhere to, as (I think?) I try to not get to personal about those issues

SConfident.gif. But yes, I do know what توفيق means, as it is my family name. In any event, keep in mind that Islam isn't exclusively Arabic and that neither is Arabic exclusively Muslim. I'm sure you are aware of how complicated the world can be, and the Middle East is far from an exception. All the best, TewfikTalk 22:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Censorship[edit]

That's how I interpret your actions. The only nonsense around is the ARbcom case.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You have named a whole pile of people. Is this case only about sockpuppetry or the whole set of religious clashes? I haven't edited the articles in question apart from locking them, and do not believe I have been sockpuppeteering. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe this, like a load of other things, is a case of bad faith. What recent harm has Shiva's Trident done to you that you suddenly decide to file an ArbCom case? Have I been put in as an involved party because I am Hindu? Or do you accuse me of something? I'll comment once I know what my role in this case is... Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 06:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no bad faith involved.There is enough circumstantial evidence - the block has been applied by Dmcdevit not Bhaisaab.TerryJ-Ho 20:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Done[edit]

Thank you. --ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 01:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar doubletalk in RfAr[edit]

Hkelkar used a lot of bafflegab trying to prove that he couldn't possibly have conducted a conversation with himself but ...

It's not necessary to use a graphics interface when connecting via SSH. I've been using a Unix shell account for 14 years and that doesn't require a graphics interface. Furthermore, it doesn't require a connection through a cable company (as Hkelkar seems to assume when he mentions coax and asymmetric up-bandwidth and down-bandwidth). All you'd need to do is plug the phone line into a modem. Then you could use one computer to connect via a cable connection and another computer to connect via a residential phone line. Or, you could mooch off a neighbor's wireless connection if the neighbor is either clueless or wants to share. I'm sure that there are even MORE ways to pretend to be two people from one and the same household. Possibilities multiply if you're accessing from a school computer lab.

He must think we're idiots. Zora 01:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is necessary to use a GUI in order to access and edit wikipedia articles. Just try to use a shell based browser and you will see the impossibility :).Hkelkar 03:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
So you've tried both ways then? BhaiSaab talk 04:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Neither way works so moot point.Hkelkar 05:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I love Dbachman's, "Bose-Singh continuum"... relative to the idea of, "treat accounts which show "hivemind" characteristics as 'effective' socks". That is sooo spot on relative to User:Bakasuprman. (Netscott) 19:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I have no firm opinion on the fundamental issues of this investigation, however, I would like you to know that I have made this very edit using an ssh connection without a GUI to a machine with lynx (web browser). Let's see how it comes out. --129.10.116.200 19:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Really? WOW! You must be a real Unix whiz! I mean, I just tried to do it and failed miserably:

File:Lynx1.jpeg
A wikipedia page in lynx


Good god! Where is the master edit button? Where is the link to the history page? Yikes!!

File:Lynx2.jpeg
Trying to edit a wikipedia page in lynx


Oh, whoopee! Found the edit button at last. Now, how to save it? How do I revert vandalism? Where is the watchlist page? Do I have to use my keyboard keys to navigate across so many links? What if I have to use popups (I have, numerous times). That requires Javascript. Lynx does not support any javascript-wavascript!What if somebody edit-wars with a graphics browser? How can I keep up? OMG!What to do?????Hkelkar 20:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Who is 129.10.116.200? BhaiSaab talk 20:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You tell me. Looks like one of your friends.Hkelkar 20:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to note, text-based editing on Wikipedia is a lot easier with w3m or links or any number of text-based browsers that support frames. A much easier and logical way of making it look like you're editing from more than one machine, though, is just to set up a proxy server. I'm not suggesting that Hkelkar actually did this; personally, the sockpuppeteering charges look unlikely to me. (Though I haven't seen the e-mail evidences aksi great seems to have produced. --Xiaopo (Talk) 21:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

True, but none of the txt browsers support javascript (unless there are CVS or newer versions I don't know about) so I can't use popups with them. However, I have repeatedly used navigation popups during my edits, particularly when reverting vandalism so I cannot do that with lynx or w3m or whatever. That alone is evidence enough to exonerate me.Hkelkar 02:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
User:Zora is right... we are being taken for idiots... Popups messages are just plain text entered into the edit summary, anyone can craft such a message and appear to be using Popups regardless of whether or not they are. Puppetry is an extremely likely explanation here. (Netscott) 02:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Well who said you've always been editing on the Chaos server? On IRC, recently, you've been using a residential IP address. It's very possible to manipulate this many ways. BhaiSaab talk 02:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes Netscott puppetry is likely isnt it? Keep in mind your comments on ANI were beehive-esque as well, especially since you both earned one-week blocks by Blnguyen. Bakaman Bakatalk 02:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
C'mon Baka we know you're just socking again. Give it up already. (Netscott) 03:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully the Arbitration commitee will take the case and subsequently take User:Dbachman's commentary to heart and do some much needed housecleaning around here. (Netscott) 02:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead, checkuser me, Hkelkar, and Subhash_bose with Mackensen and Thatcher. Go. Give what up? There's nothing for me to give up, and Netscott, unless you have proof of socking stop trolling. I think you'll find that dab is in the total minority when it comes to me. Anyway, none of the actions on Bilbobaggins8 (talk · contribs) were related to the account I use now at that point in time.Bakaman Bakatalk 04:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
IIRC, ELinks has JavaScript support, and the others have it in experimental builds. But you don't even need a text-based browser; all you need is to set up a SOCKS proxy using OpenSSH, and you can use Firefox or Internet Explorer or what have you. You don't have to run a remote X client or a text-based browser. --Xiaopo (Talk) 05:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, there are easier ways to go about this than all this SSH nonsense, which is BhaiSaab's absurd thesis. He contends that I have been using twist.ph.utexas.edu remotely using SSh and I have demonstrated how impractical that is. As for the SOCKS proxy server theory, just go ahead and run an nmap port scan on twist.ph.utexas.edu and show me the ports where a SOCKS proxy server is running. You won't find any :). I don't need to take anyone for fools, evidently... Hkelkar 06:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Plus, if I were to set up an stunnelled proxy server on twist.ph.utexas.edu, I'd need root access, wouldn't I? You know of any admins who indiscriminately give root access to their users?Plus, if they ran one by default, they'd say so on their info pages where they have listed all running servces (only SSH is forwarded out of the lan).Hkelkar 06:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
If they had such a server, the information would probably be on a private university page for students only. I know my university has one for students who want to access journal databases and other archives through our library IP address and it's quite easy to setup. BhaiSaab talk 06:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not accusing Hkelkar of anything. (Note to BhaiSaab—I happen to think it's unlikely that he and Subhash bose are socks.) But no, you don't need root on twist. All you need is root on your home machine—and that only if you want to forward a privileged port. Try a man ssh and check out the -D flag. If you did a
ssh -D 8080 twist.ph.utexas.edu
on your home machine, that would effectively set up a SOCKS server that listens on localhost:8080. Then you can set your browser to use localhost:8080 as a SOCKS proxy. No root necessary, and twist just needs TCP port 22 open, which I'm sure it is. Here's a description of how to set this up on Mac OS X; it's effectively the same process on any POSIX-compliant OS, including Linux. I encourage you to try it out; it works. --Xiaopo (Talk) 07:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
"Note to BhaiSaab—I happen to think it's unlikely that he and Subhash bose are socks." That would quickly change after a two minute conversation with aksi great. Regardless of what you think of the case, I'm still appreciative of this info. BhaiSaab talk 07:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't particularly want to get involved in this mess, and in any case, I think aksi great only offered to show interested admins. --Xiaopo (Talk) 07:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
yes I agree with Xiaopo that such a thing is doable.However, you notice the complications involved in the process. Of course, one can always allege that I used a shell script or something to smoothen the process.However, won;t it be easier for me to just log in to a remote VNC or X-Access machine in New York or wherever (they give logins for free in some of those machines) and simply control a remote browser that way?If I were to do sockpuppetry I think that I would be smart enough not to use a machine that is in the same city or locality and identify myself so easily. Of course, the truly paranoid could argue a case of double-double deception here, but I'm just throwing it out there.Hkelkar 09:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't email me at UT[edit]

Don't email me on my UT email address. The sysdamin notified me from his logfiles that I have been getting emails from various users and asked if the spool file can be unlinked. I do not want to do this so please stop or I will report you for haarrassment.Hkelkar 18:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous - I have only emailed you once, and I told you that time. Check your archives. BhaiSaab talk 19:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
If you have been telling your off-wiki buddies to spam me, then I will report my evidence to admin and add it to my RfA statement. I am compiling a list of emails that have been spamming me from the apache server logs to which I have read permission.Hkelkar 19:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Great. I'd like to see you link any of this to me. BhaiSaab talk 19:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Question[edit]

I have a few questions for you —

  • Where did you get hold of this?
  • IRC evidence is no evidence at all, and public loggers get blocked. I urge you to remove that piece from the page and delete it from the server where you have uploaded it.
  • If it wasn't you who uploaded it, please tell me here. (I like to keep my conversations unfragmented)

Nearly Headless Nick {L} 10:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not upload it, and since it's public anyway and attested to by Hkelkar and Subhash bose, I intend to use that as a part of my evidence. BhaiSaab talk 13:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Who uploaded it? — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 15:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
If you are presenting it as an evidence, then the onus lies upon you. If Hkelkar did it, please say so, otherwise I will have to ban you from all Wikimedia channels. Public logging is prohibited. Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 15:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't be so quick to get on the "ban" button there buddy. It was Subhash bose/Hkelkar who uploaded it, although so far he has only pasted the links to a censored version. I found the original after searching google for a sentence fragment from the asterisked version. As you can tell by the end of each link which has a log# (the first one ending with ....59, and the other ending with ....64), both versions were probably uploaded within a few minutes of each other. Hkelkar/Subhash bose has pasted the link to the conversation several times from what I recall. Specifically, you can see when Hkelkar linked to it in this sockpuppetry case. BhaiSaab talk 16:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Here are all the instances of it being posted on Wikipedia: [1] BhaiSaab talk 16:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Alright, he'll get a slap on the wrist for this. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 16:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

WI: A reliable source or not?[edit]

BhaiSaab, I hope you allow me a few minutes of your time. I wanted to discuss with you WI's reliability as a source. Over here, WP's policy states that there are "exceptions" to citing Wiki's as sources and one of them is that, the wiki should not be a self-published source. As WI is not a self-published source, I believe this is an exception and so WI is a reliable source. So my question to you is: How is WI not a reliable source? I'm not looking for your subjective opinion. I'm looking for logical reasons, while citing the WP's policy on Resources to explain why WI is not an exception to the rule. thanks --JohnsAr 14:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

John, please take this to an administrator so they can tell you the exact same thing I have been telling you. If you look at this section of WP:RS it explicitely states "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources." BhaiSaab talk 16:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes I'll take it to the administrators for sure some time. The policy says "For exceptions, see the section on self-published sources.". Thats why I was asking you, how is WI not an exception? It looks like you dont have any idea. --JohnsAr 17:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
er... perhaps you should reflect over what the word "exception" means. wikis in general are not reliable, as stated by WP. it is upon you to prove why it is an exception, not upon us to prove why it is not. ITAQALLAH 18:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The exceptions are already spelled out on the page - they include self-published reports by reliable journalists and such, not websites like wikiislam. BhaiSaab talk 19:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Popped over after a question on this was raised at the talk page for WP:Reliable Sources. Wikis are definitely NOT considered reliable sources for several reasons. One is that it is impossible to tell who actually wrote the article (while it could be an expert, it could also be someone who does not know what they are talking about - we have no way of knowing). Another is that the articles on Wikis change freequently. A statement you are citing from a wiki article one day, may not remain in the wiki the next day (someone may have deleted it). Therefore there is very little chance of verification... an important key policy in Wikipedia.
Please note that providing a wikilink to another article in Wikipedia, or in one of its related projects is not considered using that article as a source... it is simply a link to more information within the same project. If Wikiislam is part of the greater wikipedia chain, then a wikilink can and should be allowed. Blueboar 19:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Fortunately it's not a part of some greater Wikipedia chain, but just a part of an Islamophobic chain from Faithfreedom. BhaiSaab talk 19:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Arbitration[edit]

Hello BhaiSaab. Yes, you're right. Cheers. TwoHorned 22:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Underlying reasons for RFAr[edit]

I made my statement. That is my opinion. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 05:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Third holiest site Afd page[edit]

Hi, you seem to have voted twice, please delete one of the votes (I can't edit the page). Thanks - thestick 17:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

What is your idea[edit]

Salam. We can put the list of articles which are nominated for deletion in Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam#Current issues instead of "Maps, Pictures, Timelines, etc" or beside it.--Sa.vakilian 16:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Sabrang[edit]

Er, when did I say that NYT is unreliable?NYT is partisan certainly, and a liberal rag, but not unreliable once you tone down their polemic. In contrast, Sabrang is a vanity site established by a claque of terrorist-sympathizers and cannot be cited except as a primary source which, in this case, it is not.Of course, if reliable sources can be found concerning this matter then that would be different.Hkelkar 01:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. I am using Ramesh Rao's writeup as a PRIMARY source after qualifying that it is HE who said it. That Boud guy did not do that. he used the sabrang terrorist propaganda as a secondary source.If Iyer really bashed Hindus then it should be available in a reliable source, right?Hkelkar 01:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Protecting Death Cult[edit]

Protected. Re images on my userpage. I change pics regularely and soon i'll be changing them soon if it bothers some people. -- Szvest 13:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up ®

Christian wikis page deleted[edit]

I saw your message. Thats great. Policy is being followed and its always glad to see that happen. However, you'll have a hard time convincing anyone sane that external wiki's shouldnt be present in External Links. That wiki-ban was only for sources in the article, not external links. But anyway like I said I wont pursue linking wikiislam anymore here, not for the timebeing atleast. But dont worry, wikiIslam will be back for sure, you can count on that. The only question is when. It was nice talking to you. For now I wont check my messages or reply, unless necessary.--JohnsAr 05:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar[edit]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

An advice[edit]

I would request a reference to your message on my talk page [2] which may be construed by many to be an edit with bad faith violating the editing guidelines and policies (of wikipedia), and for such edit(s), you may be blocked from editing wikipedia. In order to save you from the possibility of such a block, I have made your edit invisible in your own interest to save you from the possibility of a long or short block. I trust that you also believe (like me) that editing wikipedia is a privilege and not a right [3]. I wish you a peaceful time here. --Bhadani 17:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for your message on my talk page. We are becoming friends! I had again covered (Piggy banked) your message in your interest to save you from a possible block fearing that your edits may be considered as provocative by many. By the way, I found a nice thing which I would like to share with you: Piggy in Numberland Newsroom is an award winning math program [4]. I like pigs very much though I am not so sure of your likes and dislikes. We all should love animals. I am imagining a world of flying pigs as mentioned in the link provided by me. In case, you like pigs, please feel free to share the same with me. Regards and thank you. --Bhadani 17:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting Article[edit]

BhaiSaab , have a look at this [5]. It is written by another scholar of Islam who respects(and even loves) Muhammad so much (like Watt) but explains why these Islamic scholars don't convert to Islam. --Aminz 10:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

New article you may want to edit[edit]

Hello BhaiSaab, I've started a new article about Saudi Arabia's first feature film: Keif al-hal?. I invite you to contribute to it if such an article might interest you. Thanks. :-) (Netscott) 02:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Islam in the U.S.[edit]

re:Any further reverts to the article could cause either of us to break the 3rr rule. Please read my edit summary in my second-to-last edit on the article. BhaiSaab talk 16:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The videos are the supporting evidence for the preceeding statement in that section. They also reflect an aspect of Islam's presence in the United States which is part of a comprehensive coverage of the article. Clearly your reverts show a consistent pattern of excising sourced and referenced material from Wikipedia articles and one might conclude that you object to the fair and balanced presentation of material in Wikipedia. --CltFn 16:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Because they ( the videos) refers to this sentence: The public displays of fringe Muslim groups like the Islamic Thinkers Society in New York City have served to project negative images of disaffection not representative of the wider Muslim community in the eyes of witnesses.--CltFn 22:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
We had added this sentence in the text to emphasize that this was the behavior of a fringe group and not all the Muslim community. If you remove that sentence then the readers may believe that the radical behavior is representative of the whole community. But if you prefer that radicalism be associated with the whole community its up to you .--CltFn 22:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Those specific videos document the behavior of those radical groups , we call them fringe to emphasize that they are not the mainstream. Why the vidoes? , because if you just mention that there is radicalism going on the part of some groups , then people say , "prove it!" and where is the evidence for this. Well the videos provide the evidence for that assertion. If you watch the videos you will see the Islamic Thinkers society members promiting their radical views right in a busy NY street, in full view of the crowd that is watching them. Now, would you understand why some people in the crowd are going to get a bad impression about Islam when the Islamic Thinkers society members are seen burning the US flag and stamping on it and shouting Allah Akbar right in front of them?--CltFn 23:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Their ( ITS) 's presence is noteworthy , since they are running their campaign right in the middle of New York City when thousands of people see them , and their videos are all over the internet and even included in documentaries like Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West which was broadcasted by the FOX network to millions of people last week. They may be a small group, but you can thank them for really worsening the image of Islam in the US--CltFn 23:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Islam[edit]

BhaiSaab, thanks for writing. I was doing some research about the Seal of the Prophets and came across the "vast majority" wording on this site. I wanted to ensure NPOV... I suppose one could argue from an "undue weight" standpoint re: the intro to Islam... if you feel that logic is applicable then by all means go ahead and revert me... I won't counter you with another revert. Thanks again. (Netscott) 19:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I've self-reverted.... but still mention of others' belief in something other than the concept of the "seal of the prophets" is probably warranted in the article. (Netscott) 19:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Somehow I missed that... thanks again. :-) (Netscott) 19:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Islam[edit]

Personally, I think that Islamophobia ought to be deleted entirely. Any useful points from it can easily be added to criticism of Islam, which should remain separate because the sections complement each other (bad muslims, bad non-muslims). Dev920 (Please vote here) 20:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam and Islamic extremist terrorism. On second thoughts, they don't work quite as well as I had thought, but they have a certain harmony, if criticism contains positive and negative points (because I don't think people should use the criticism section of slamming Islam. Maybe that guy linked to on Striver's page who's christian but likes islam a lot should be added?). But Islamophobia is I think a subject vague enough and thrown around so liberally it doesn't really warrant anything other than a mention in the criticism section. I also don't think the h2 should be "Controversies". It's naff. Dev920 (Please vote here) 20:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

SockPuppets[edit]

Hey BhaiSaab-

I was wondering if you knew of any other users besides user:CltFn who've used sockpuppets to edit religion- or political-related Wikipedia entries. Thanks. --Kitrus 10:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Sikhism and Islam[edit]

The accompanying sentence states that Sikhism either emerged out of an Islamic milieu or have beliefs in common with Islam in varying degrees. Now what does varying degrees mean? That's dubious, what does it mean by varying degrees, I'm sure many religions had some sort of Islamic influence if there were Islamic people in the region. The truth is Sikhism is categorized as Dharmic and is influenced more by Dharmic teachings than it is by Islamic. So I don't think this beliefs in common thing applies to it as Sikhism just didn't emerge out of Islam. In any case, the Pakistani nationalism said (I'm not sure whether it says now) that Pakistanis take pride in the killing of a Sikh guru. I don't see the Islamic relations there. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 04:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice your reply. What is your point though. Religions are influenced by pre-existing religions all the time. I just don't think it's fair to mention Sikhism in the tone in which it is presented in that page. The page suggests Sikhism spawned out of Islam. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 04:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
NEagle - Some of the greatest Muslim personalities including top caliphs were martyred by fanatic elements very early in Islamic history? Does that make them less Muslim?? MerryJ-Ho 16:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Your vandalism on Criticism of the Quran[edit]

You have no justification for removing the link to the hadith. This is found in a secondary source. You also have no justification for removing Spencer's observation about the Quran. He is a critic of Islam and his writing is entirely appropriate here. The link to the exact same hadith you keep deleting can be found not only in SMK, but also here, which I linked to from the talk page days ago. Other webpages about this issue in fact quote other hadiths. I am more than justified in linking to this one hadith as an example; it is found in AT LEAST TWO DIFFERENT SOURCES. Even if it were only to be found in SMK, his material is posted on very prominent websites engaged in criticism of the Quran. You are engaging in vandalism and if you don't stop I will initiate action against you. Arrow740 09:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Spencer is not a reliable source. Let me look into the dispute. --Aminz 09:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
He is a reliable source for criticism of Islam. What a joke. He is certainly a very prominent critic of Islam. His ideas belong here. Arrow740 09:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. We have no lack of scholars. These scientific criticisms (also scientific foretellings) according to some academic scholars, are all faulty arguments. --Aminz 09:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about. Look at the history page for the article in question. Arrow740 09:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I mean, everybody here is wasting their time, according to some scholars. Scientific errors, scientific predictions, ... --Aminz 09:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with those scholars that say that you are wasting time. The quote in question is: "Muslim scholars claim that these verses have been taken out of context, that once read with the whole surah they give different meanings/interpretations. [citation needed] Regarding the issue of context, Robert Spencer writes that the Qur'an itself provides little context for understanding verses [1], and notes that the surahs in the Qur'an are not ordered chronologically, but by length." It's in the article Criticism of the Quran, not the Relation between Islam and Science. There is nothing to do with science here. However now that you've brought up the subject, the Quran claims that semen comes out of the lower back [Quran 86:5], but you probably know that this is incorrect. This is based on the incorrect Hippocratic teaching on the subject, which was widely accepted at the time. Arrow740 09:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Bhaisaab, I retract my statement about Spencer's quote. It was a mistake. Arrow740 22:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop removing things from the Criticism of the Qur'an article that clearly belong there. Arrow740 20:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Quran is not a subcategory of Islam as far as I can tell [6]. Either way this article belongs in the Islam category. Arrow740 21:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Also you never gave any justification for removing the link quoted in the secondary source, or denied that it was vandalism to do so. You had no justiication and did not attempt to give any. Arrow740 21:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm talking about the hadith where Muhammad talks about the resting place of the sun. Arrow740 21:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
So it appears Quran is a sub-subcategory of Islam. Criticism of the Quran goes to the heart of Islam, and so this belongs in the Islam category. Arrow740 21:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You helped choose Islam as this week's WP:AID winner[edit]

COTWnew.png
Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Islam was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

Dev920 13:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar arbitration case[edit]

May I suggest that you provide evidence on the evidence page? Descriptions of disruptive editing practices, supported by diffs, will be much more persuasive than unsupporteed accusations. You might want to look over the evidence pages in some prior cases to get an idea of how the process works. Thatcher131 14:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism[edit]

Jews keep themselves to themselves - a religion that doesn't seek converts and numbers 0.002% of the world's population would not garner much criticism. However, I agree with you, and did reduce it before I put it in - but unless something can be justifiably rmeoved, I don't really want to cut it down anymore just because it's "too long". I tried to be comprehensive but not verbose. Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 17:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Does Israel have any significant influence on Judaism as a religion? That's like saying I ought to be able to put in a section about how awful Islam is because Iraq gassed the Kurds. Equally ridiculous. Anyway, you've cut down the article, so I'd say that was ok now. Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 17:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, it's like saying I ought to be able to put in a section about how awful Islam is because 23% of Islamic states aren't in any way democratic, compared with 75% of all other states.
If you're going to be anti-Semitic, please keep it to yourself. Wikipedia is no place for bigotry. Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 18:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I wasn't the one just now arguing that Judaism should have a criticism section because half of the world's Jews live in Israel, which some people think has done wrong. That seems more weak.
Because people should have the right to govern their own lives, and teh vote is a more important part of that. In addition to that, as you well know, most undemocratic Islamic states also persecute woman, gays, non-Muslims, Shias, and anyone who annoys them. But you don't see me writing that into Islam, do you? Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 18:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not offended - I'm just fed up with most Muslims' rampant anti-Semitism. The Jews did not create Israel, the British did, and if Muhammed said that Judaism and Christianity were created by God, then I fail to see why Muslims cannot accept that God gave the Jews Israel. To believe such hatred as I have witnessed, you have to deny the teachings of the Qu'ran. Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 18:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
if you do not accept that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are the same thing, then do not claim that Judaism should have a criticism section because you do not like Israel. Jews are not Israelis. Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 18:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a case of being fair, it's a case of what is appropriate to the article. Judaism and Sikhism do not need a criticism section. Christianity and Islam do. "Fairness" does not enter the issue. Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 23:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm noticing Sikhism made it to FA without a criticism section, so I'm guessing Wikipedia disagrees with you. Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 23:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I doubt it. Sikhism has never been accused of oppressing women and non-believers or human righst abuses. You will NEVER get Islam to FA if you remove that section - which is why I added it in the first place. Again, I reiterate that every article has to be taken on its own context, not what other articles have done. Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 23:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Your message[edit]

Shalom - I have put an email on my account..sarkeshvar@rediffmail.com - MerryJ-Ho 23:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration[edit]

Appko bhi.I think you will need luck more than I.Hkelkar 04:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Aren;t whoops aren't they?I am rather confident that they are.I know things about Arbcomm that most don't know. Hkelkar 06:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Indian Buddhist Movement and vandalism HKelkar[edit]

There is more information about Vandalism by HKelkar on the article Indian Buddhist Movement . He reverts even sourced information. Ambedkaritebuddhist 11:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Posting links to other pages[edit]

Hey, when you post links to talk pages, the general practice is to provide a link to a previous revision, like this: "A discussion regarding the edits on Indian caste system took place here." That way, the link works if the page is modified or archived. Even if it's unlikely anybody will change the page while the case is taking place, you'll want your links to work after the case is archived. --Xiaopo (Talk) 21:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem[edit]

I'm just starting to look at the case, no strong opinions at this point. Fred Bauder 22:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  1. ^ Robert Spencer, Onward Muslim Soldiers, pages 126-127.