User talk:Daenumen

This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.
(see: block log · contributions · current autoblocks)

Extended content

previous talk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daenumen/archive1 Daenumen (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forum comments

Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Mohammed for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you.—Kww(talk) 18:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

all of the points i raised are for correction of the article.

the article undermines islam, the work and life of the prophet, and it is not supported by the quran Daenumen (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article attempts to provide an objective view of Islam as a religion, and is not written from the perspective that the Quran is true. That's to be expected in an encyclopedia, and what is mandated by WP:NPOV. If you reinsert that section, you will be blocked from editing.—Kww(talk) 18:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wrong, as i stated all of the points are as raised in the quran. Daenumen (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC) including the duty to warn you of what you are doing Daenumen (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Muhammad article is a biography article about a historical person. It is not an article about Islam. Learn the difference, please. And, Wikipedia articles do not require support from the Qur'an. Wikipedia is not the place to lay out your own personal religious point of view. We strive to be neutral instead. You have no "duty" to warn us about anything, especially when based on your own personal religious beliefs. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i agree that the article is not about islam, and thankyou but i can tell the difference, regardless my comment was in answer to all of the previous comments on the discussion page regarding the prophet muhammad. the prophet muhammads life was about islam, and the quran states clearly muhammads role on this earth as the prophet revealing the quran to the people. this is however being disregarded in the article, yet the article revolves around muhammad as a prophet and the messenger of islam. my point is, why do you refuse to state it in a factually accurate way?

the discussion i was having was based on the content of the quran, not souly my own personal beliefs, the beliefs shared also by muhammad and followers of islam, and the guise in which it is required for the prophet to be respected and honoured. to be ignorant of this fact is a prejudice and insensitivity toward an article which has strong religious conotations. again the life of muhammad was not disjoint from religion. the current article disregards that, ie it disregards who muhammad is in context with his role and position on earth and hence his biography is both presented in a manner contrary to his lifes work and also in a way that is factually inaccurate with respect to the sources validating his very existence on earth.

again muhammads life was to warn people of this, so too shall you be warned again. Daenumen (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daenumen (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

Posting a link to the same WP:FORUM comments in userspace is the same thing. Do it again and you'll be blocked without further discussion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing at Talk:Mohammed. Any admin can lift this block when the editor agrees to make an effort to abide by WP:NPOV and shows that he understands that talk pages are places to discuss article improvement from a neutral point of view, not places to publish religious instruction or pointers to religious instruction.. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—Kww(talk) 19:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Daenumen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

edit was constructive and related to verified source description of article content

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. TN X Man 20:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Daenumen (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

as a further note, it will be most beneficial for the content on the page talk:muhammad to be considered by someone that knows about the quran/muhammad in respect to his lifes work/religious duty and source verifying his role/life. Daenumen (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Daenumen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i was blocked for "disruptive editing at Talk:Mohammed" - the edit i made on the discussion page WAS a constructive answering of all disputed points on discussion page, my repeated addition of the page is the second(?) error(?). sorry this is so long.

Decline reason:

You were advised that re-adding would be considered to be disruptive, full-stop. I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

the addition can be viewed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daenumen/muhammad. and orders all topics relating to muhammad from the top to the bottom of the page talk:muhammad Daenumen (talk) 10:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Daenumen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

1. Initial block for disruptive editing at Talk:Mohammed, and reason for first unblock request denial. 2. For re-addition of comment to the discussion page, as stated in my second unblock request and stated as the reason for the second unblock request denial. 3. Edit was repeatedly removed for reasons such as soapboxing – the edit is a direct answer of all issues raised on the discussion page from the quran, and as a religious material it is also required of the user of the material to obide by the legislation expounded within ie (what people who do not know the quran would mistake for soapboxing understandably). 4. The quran is a verified source both as discussed in the edit wrt prophecy manifest some 1400 years after Muhammad -- ie baby girls being thrown away in china, and also presents as much of an NPOV as the source permits. The requirement of use of the quran is to obide by the instruction as per defined in the book; ie formally - religious sensitivity, hence wrt not places to publish religious instruction or pointers to religious instruction –this is effectively unavoidable, and must be appreciated with sensitivity (ie people endued with understanding of the quran—as per my request). 5. The prophet Muhammad is a religious figure who’s role is defined most verifiably via the quran – a religious text and biography largely/entirely dominated with his role as a prophet to the followers of the religion al-Islam. hence the edit defines the religiously sensitive requirements for commenting and discussion of a prophet. :: sorry so long - alot of points to clarify for you. Look forward to making accurate encyclopedic additions that are contextually respectful.

Decline reason:

Yu seem either unwilling or unable to comprehend what Wikipedia is and how it works and to acknowledge that it is not a place for theological lectures but rather an neutral encyclopedia. I will be revoking your ability to appeal the block in this manner, you will need to email WP:ARBCOM directly if you wish to pursue this matter further, click here for details. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

While you've acknowledged why you were blocked (soapboxing on talk pages after repeat warnings to stop), you don't appear to be willing to stop it if you're unblocked. (In fact, you're more or less soapboxing in your unblock request now). If you're incapable of understanding why we don't permit this, you probably shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Daenumen/muhammad

User:Daenumen/muhammad, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Daenumen/muhammad and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Daenumen/muhammad during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Received your email

And as I said when declining your unblock request, you will need to email WP:ARBCOM directly if you wish to pursue this matter further, click here for details. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what part of this message is unclear to you. I didn't say "start a full-on arbitration case" I said "email ARBCOM directly". Details on how to do that in your situation are at WP:BASC. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]