|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)