Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Hi, many thanks for your contributions and Ramadan Mubarak! I just added an image to Holy Spirit (Islam), there are many pages in template:Muhammad, some of them need attention, for example page splitting of the moon is written as if Muhammad (p.b.u.h) really did split the moon, the page even shows an image of a crater in the moon, what do you think?Kiatdd (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear from you again, Kiatdd. Yes, the Ramadan has commenced. The image you added is nice, though images are discouraged in Islam. What is your view? About the article Splitting of the moon, it presents various views of Muslim scholars, and may be balanced. And Muslims believe that Muhammad (p.b.u.h) really did split the moon. The image is from Nasa and must be real. Now, it is not necessary that the shown split-line must be that one believed by Muslims. But Muslims do believe the miracle.--AsceticRosé 04:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gautier Juynboll was a professor of Islamic studies, the focus of his research was hadith. Here is a summary of what he has written in page 483 and 484 of his book encyclopedia of canonical hadith [1]:

a person named Shu'ba is common link and may therefore be held responsible for the wording of this tradition...the matn (text) pertains to one of the recognized miracles ascribed to Muhammad of which there is however no trace in sira (of ibn ishaq) an observation that seems to tally neatly with Shu'ba's suggested authorship of the wording. It is surely unthinkable that the compiler of sira of ibn ishaq who died some 10 years before shu'ba would neglect to record a miracle allegedly worked by Muhammad if he had heard of it...In Tafsir Tabari there are several reports about verse 54:1-2 and its association with the alleged miracle. According to tabari two of the reports are allegedly transmitted by Mujahid (d.718)...There are two good reasons for not linking Mujahid with it. Firstly, Mujahid's Tafsir now separately available does not corroborate the mujahid report on this matter from tabari. Mujahid's name is absent from the isnad strand supporting the crucial explanation. Secondly the two reports of Mujahid in Tabari are headed by two consecutive transmitters who are generally held to be unreliable: Mihran Abi Umar and Muhammad Humayd, so identifying the said interpretation with Mujahid is to be rejected.

and here is the most important part of Juynboll's analysis:

the story about the miracle may therefore be considered to have come into existence about half-way the eight century...strictly speaking when the most stringent criteria underlying the concept of tawatur (trustworthiness) are brought to bear it falls far short of that qualification.

Juynboll's analysis says that the story of splitting of the moon virtually didn't exist before mid eight century CE, i.e. around the year 750 CE and considering the fact that Muhammad (pbuh) lived from 570 to 632 CE, we conclude that the miracle came into existence about 120 years after his death.Kiatdd (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian scholar Al-Suyuti in his book Al-Khasais-ul-Kubra has mentioned this miracle. This book is a collection of all the miracles of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) that could be tracked down by various reliable sources. A Urdu version of the book is available online. Muslim scholar Muhammad Shafi Usmani in his Tafsir book Maariful Quran has also discussed about this and ruled that this event is true. The relevant part of this Tafsir book can be downloaded from here. From http://www.islamibayanaat.com/EMQ.htm this website, you can download the whole MQ. My comment is that about some remote historical events it is difficult to say what actually happened. So a believer’s notion should be that he believes what actually then happened by the will of Allah. Personally I believe the miracle because the holy Quran in 54:1-2 mentions it and Muslim scholars – whom we rely upon for Islamic sharia rulings – have verified this.

You didn’t say what your notion is about the images.

Earlier, we had a discussion about the importance of Quranic explanation. There is a book The Authority of Sunnah by Muhammad Taqi Usmani. A pdf is also available online. You can read it.--AsceticRosé 10:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qur'anic exegetes agree on relating 54:1-2 to the story but a consensus may be ignored in the light of evidence from research. Knowledge is about evidence, not consensus. BTW, I found another source, chapter 2 of Cambridge companion to Muhammad(pbuh)[2] by Uri Rubin, pages 39-60, I haven't read that yet but I think we can update page:s.o.m based on Rubin's and Juynboll's works. we will probably edit s.o.m, would you mind adding it to your watchlist.Thanks.Kiatdd (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(p.s. the images in page Muhammad(pbuh) is per consensus, have you seen the consensus page?)

I looked at reference #20, it shows ten hadiths in english translation, all of the hadiths except one say that Aisha was married at the age of 6. So only one hadith says that she was engaged at 6. As for that one hadith that says she was engaged, the translation is incorrect. The hadith which I speak of is this. (Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234: ) http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/058-sbt.php#005.058.234

Now, if you can read Arabic, you can go to this site and read that same hadith in Arabic and it says married, not engaged. http://sunnah.com/urn/36400

If you cant read Arabic, just copy and paste it into google translate and it will give you the same thing. http://translate.google.com/

Also, you will find that the scholars on Islam QA translated that hadith into married. http://islamqa.info/en/ref/1493

Conclusion:

Clearly the Prophet had a wife, not a fiancee. Out of 10 of those hadiths in reference #20, only 1 said engaged instead of married, and that translation wasn't correct. So the Aisha page should say married instead of "betrothed".

I'd like to finish with a saying from the Prophet himself:

“Whoever lies about me deliberately, let him take his place in Hell.”

108.89.20.139 (talk) 05:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has been moved at article's talk-page.--AsceticRosé 10:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Al Khasais-ul-Kubra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Egyptian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lead contains the info of conviction twice:

"On 28 February 2013, the tribunal sentenced him to death by hanging for two charges among the eight committed during the 1971 Liberation War of Bangladesh.[5][6][7]The tribunal has been criticized as well as supported by international observers.[8][9][10][11] Sayeedi was convicted on 8 charges on 28 February 2013 and was sentenced to death for two of the charges."

check it

-- রাহাত | ✉ 07:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm checking it...--AsceticRosé 08:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it contained the information twice. I've self reverted it. User:Ctg4Rahat, many thanks for pointing that out, and my sincere apology for the mistake.--AsceticRosé 09:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind explaining why you edited State of Palestine in the way you did? Your edit summary said you thought the "previous language was better", but I can't see why. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Chicago Style (without pants), first of all, there is not yet a clear consensus at talk-page to change this. Second, I fear you are reluctant to give it the status of a "state" which your previous edits and edit-summaries tell, and your changing the lead has been seen to achieve that.

I see, in a previous version of the article, the article started like The State of Palestine (Arabic: دولة فلسطين‎ Dawlat Filasṭin),[3][1][2] is a country located in the Middle East bordering Israel, Egypt, and Jordan. I'm not sure when and why that was changed, but in my view, that was better.

Until you guys come up with any alternative and undisputed lead sentence, the present should remain there to clarify that it is a state; albeit I recognize that this sentence might be slightly awkward to read!--AsceticRosé 16:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Ascetic Rose. The edit by Chicago Style was immature one, just trying to put a certain Point of view. Faizan 08:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a POV to call State of Palestine a state. It isn't universally recognized as such, and also has little control of the area it claims. In addition, Hamas claims to be the legitimate government of that area, and has an election victory to back it up.

The lead of the article should reflect the controversy, not ignore it. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not POV, Chicago Style. Rather what you are trying to insert is POV. You wrote … is the state claimed by the Palestinian leadership. Now, is it only the leadership who claims this and not the citizens? Why such disrespect towards a persecuted and terrorized nation? Try to have respect towards others, man. And assume good faith on Wikipedia.--AsceticRosé 08:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read over your comment. Do you really think you should be involved in this debate? Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 08:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit has been reverted for the 3dr time by another editor! I think you should reconsider your position, CS. Please note that we make discussion on Wikipedia, and not debate. Is there any policy on Wikipedia that prohibits an user from participating in any specific article? -AsceticRosé 09:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You called the Palestinian territories a "a persecuted and terrorized nation". Kind of shows a bias, no? Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 10:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apply water to your burnChicago Style (without pants) (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Al-Suyuti may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *''[[Al-Khasais-ul-Kubra]]'' which mentions the miracles of Islamic prophet [Muhammad]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ibn Tahir of Caesarea may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• l-ansab''. Dar al-Kotb al-Ilmieh, 1991. [[Arabic language|Arabic]]. 225 pages.<ref>[[Amazon.de]], [http://www.amazon.de/Al-Mutalif-wa-l-mukhtalaf-fi-l-ansab-al-Maqdisi-al-Qaisarani/dp/B004C2LSEO Al-

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the page Kaaba adds the quote of "Eduard Glaser", regarding the black stone, how about if we add the quotes of any different authors that i have suggested in the page? Because they probably hold as much credibility in there point of view. Capitals00 (talk) 07:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's just an opinion disputed by other scholars. Even Eduard used the phase may have been. I've already presented my arguments there. Thanks. -AsceticRosé 17:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

can you help me by correcting wiki-table / hereBaltistani (talk) 10:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What help do you need? I don't see any table. You are about to create a new article with probably a wrong format.--AsceticRosé 10:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baltistani, I've partially solved it. --AsceticRosé 10:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ThanksBaltistani (talk) 08:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Job in Islam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mansura (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have just answered (well I hope) your question on the rollback talk page. Prabash.Akmeemana 21:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AsceticRose, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Faizan 06:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

هذا مملکتی و انت عرب انا لا اقول شی ء فی تاریخ القوام العرب بل انت یقول فی تاریخ الاقوام الایرانی بلا معرفه انت اجنبی فی تاریخ مملکتی هل انت محتاج بالعلم فی تاریخ مملکتی قل لاصدقائک الفارسی لبحث فی اقوام الترکی الایرانی انا من ازربایجان واراد لیتغییر تاریخ الجعلی الفارسی الشونیستی اقراء فی وب سایتی www.sumerturk .blogfa.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.186.128.55 (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw that you reverted this edit from an anonymous user as a good faith edit. What was wrong with that edit? If it's not obvious what is wrong with an edit that is reverted, it's good practice to write an explanation of why the edit is reverted in the edit summary field. —Kri (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kri, actually the edit didn't seem to me consistent with the previous information, and it was without any citation. If you still think that was correct, you can restore it, or may tell me to do so. Thanks. --AsceticRosé 22:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Please remember to leave a motivation whenever you revert someone else's edits in the future, though. Well, I understand that you question the correctness of the statement, it actually seems incorrect to me. However, I think the sentence could have been reformulated instead of removed, as it had a point. As for the consistency, it referred to the first-move advantage which had previously been mentioned in the paragraph, so it was definitely consistent with the previous information. As for referencing, the template {{fact}} can be used if a claim needs a citation, so the sentence desn't have to be removed. I will see if I can weave in komidashi in the paragraph in some useful way without making any claim that's dubious. —Kri (talk) 10:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --AsceticRosé 04:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Jeppiz (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was no edit war, rather a misunderstanding. This message was unnecessary. And the issue in now resolved!--AsceticRosé 06:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Re:Jeppiz) Actually user:Amatulic violated 3RR and can be reported to 3RR noticeboard, It is okay to remove unsourced or poorly sourced content as AsceticRose did. That's really nice of AsceticRose not reporting Amatulic. Kiatdd (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi....

so you reverted my edit in "Mecca" article for some reason, you showed the opinion that says that book was a 10th century product, and I showed the other opinion that says it's a 3rd century BC product

I just don't see the point of omitting the other opinion, we must tell both sides of the story, I reverted the article again Omar amross (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Omar amross, first, your added info said the book about was written in 3rd BCE whereas Moses article says Prophet Musa was born around 1391–1271 BCE. How can a book be written about a person thousand years before his birth? Second, you used that said book as a reference to indicate the book's composition date. This is actually impossible. I'm not sure what you are trying to say by adding the information.

In Mecca article, the early history of Mecca is very poorly & shortly narrated from Islamic tradition, about the fact that it was established by Prophet Abraham and Ishmael's descendants. It wold be better if you can expand that with proper sources. Thanks.--AsceticRosé 04:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you mis-understood my statement, I said that the book was about 3rd CENTURY BCE, Not 3rd MILLENNIUM BCE

Hope I made it clear....besides, I didn't use the book itself to prove the date, it was actually the opinion of Professor Moses Gaster, he was the one who dated the book to the 3rd CENTURY BCE, his book contains translation of the original manuscript, and then a detailed study about its content

the book was titled as "Book of Asatir", but that doesn't mean it contains only an English translation of original content, it contains whole chapters written Professor Moses Gaster where he puts his opinions and the conclusions of his study about this work Omar amross (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S: since we have already explained the misunderstanding concerning the article, I will revert it again

Thank you for your time and understanding Omar amross (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--AsceticRosé 18:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sarai Alamgir may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''Sarai Alamgir''' ([[Punjabi language|Punjabi]], [[Urdu]]: '''سرائے عالمگیر''') (pop. 175, 288 (as per DCR 1998) is the chief town of the [[tehsil]] of the [[Sarai Alamgir Tehsil|
• Shakreela Shareef, Gorian, Hattar, Jaggu Head, Jaggu, Dandi Nazam, Dandi Bazar, Nakka Bhagali, [[Choa Rajgan,Phullarwan,Bulani,Pirkhana,Rajr Kalan,Bawali, Karyala, Meh kalan, Nai abadi, GIAL BALA

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Urdu may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I appreciate you removing my edits to the page under a "Good Faith" category. However, these edits are quite factual. Please check my references. The first may not exist as the correct link was lost, but the Full House quote is in fact true. Thank you and Happy Editing!!!

Ipodtouchboy18 (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ipodtouchboy18, thanks for contacting me. The edit was reverted because that was not appropriate for Wikipedia. You can see two important policies: reliable sources and guidelines about biography of living persons). Your first source was a blog which is generally is not used as a source. The second portion of your edit had the similar problem: anything that insults or likely to insult a person is generally not accepted without reliable sources. I see your previous edit of similar case was reverted by another user months ago.

Your last two sources do not say anything you added. I'm leaving a message on your talk-page with some useful links. You will find some guidelines by reading them. Cheers. --AsceticRosé 22:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar
	Congratulations, AsceticRose! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and -- t numbermaniac c 05:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Visakha Valley School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Red light (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see you reported 96.248.15.44 to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Well he's back and continuing to add in his preferred edit. If I revert again I will be at 3RR so I was wondering if this should go back to the notice board or is some other action the correct way to go? Thanks. --Daffydavid (talk) 03:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This IP seems to be extremely problematic and stubborn. I'm trying to make him/her understand through talk-page. Let's wait and see what happens...--AsceticRosé 10:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My contribution to the saltine cracker challenge was correct. My 1st contribution and you undo it for what reason? How is correcting bad information not constructive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grndzro (talk • contribs) 17:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grndzro, sorry to learn it was your first edit. It was undone because you deleted some sourced information, and inserted your own in a way to appear the previous source supports it. It is not accepted. Second, if you don't provide source in support of your info, how will we know that the edit is correct?

Please try to contact as soon as possible. Eight-day period is long to track down the edit. Thanks. --AsceticRosé 17:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assalamu Alaikum....

I wish a happy Eid filled with joy & happiness to you, your family, your friends and loved ones

May Allah have accepted you "Sawm" and "Salah" Omar amross (talk) 02:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments in that RM just removed some wrong perceptions from my mind about you. Thanks. Eid Mubarak. --Zayeem ^(talk) 12:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much and Eid Mubarak to you.Kiatdd (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know why you reversed my edit concerning Mohammed Salah.I did not lie or launch a personal attack on him.I simply stated a fact.Unless you are anti-semetic yourself of course.Many Muslims hate Jews and all other non-Muslims are you one of them ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundsgreenboy (talk • contribs) 19:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boundsgreenboy, first of all, please note that we don't make any edit based on racial consideration, rather we follow Wikipedia policies. In case of living persons, it is not appropriate to use In a shocking display of racism... which you did. Second, any crucial claim must be supported by proper sources which you didn't provide. Again, we have to write them in a neutral tone, not like a personal comment. I provided clear edit summary as to why I reverted that. You should have followed them.

I see you tried to add your personal comment for a second time which has been reverted again by another user here calling it vandalism. Please study Wikipedia policies and you will learn more about how to contribute properly to Wikipedia. Thanks. --AsceticRosé 05:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

page:Muhammad's first revelation was a mess! I tried to clean up as much as possible, would you mind having a look at the page I may have missed something there.Kiatdd (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Hi Kiatdd, nice to hear from you again. Yes I'll have a look whenever I'll get time. Thanks for letting me know.--AsceticRosé 02:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I saw you caught and reverted the attack against me on the Richard Armitage webpage. Thank you!:)

Is there anyway to remove it from the editing history entirely?

Also, they posted the same thing on my user page. Of course I can remove it, but I'm wondering if the ISP the person was using can be banned?

Thanks again for your help,

~ KiplingKat/Jenny — Preceding unsigned comment added by KiplingKat (talk • contribs) 18:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered at your talk-page. -AsceticRosé 16:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

..or if you know who I can talk to about this.

Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KiplingKat (talk • contribs) 18:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KiplingKat (talk • contribs) 23:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you pushing for State of Palestine to be called "sovereign"? That word means that a state has actual control. The PLO does not have actual control of the West Bank, and certainly not the Gaza Strip. What is up? Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was added by another user, but I support it. State of Palestine is included in List of sovereign states. It is recognized by 132 states. By your own POV editings, you have made it hard for your views to be accepted by others. Now, your edits on Palestine-related articles will most probably be reverted quickly. Happy editing! -AsceticRosé 17:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine is not included as an "observer state". To quote List of sovereign states, "The proclaimed state has no agreed territorial borders, or effective control on the territory that it proclaimed". Therefore, it isn't sovereign. Many states agree that it should be recognized, but right now the PLO doesn't have control of more than a part of the West Bank and no control of the Gaza Strip. In addition, Wiki pages are not sources. I called it a state with limited recognition, because it is not universally recognized. There are many nations that see it as a rump state at best.

You are pushing POV because you are trying to say "IT IS A STATE, It IS A STATE" when the issue is more complicated. If you can't see the nuance and edit accordingly, please stay out of Israel/Palestine related articles. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are really being reverted quickly by others! Happy editing CS!--AsceticRosé 04:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Others are pushing the same POV" is not an answer. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 07:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know AsceticRose, the problem with wiki articles is that they are too many! it seems impossible to fix all the problems and we are only a handful of editors, just take a look at the first line of page:Muhammad's views on slavery, I am pretty sure that in the Quran slavery is criticized, and I don't believe that Muhammad owned 50 slaves, Perhaps the word 'servant' is mistranslated to slave, I am not sure. Would you mind having a quick look.Kiatdd (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the article Muhammad's views on slavery and I was appalled by its present condition. You are right: it is deeply problematic. I was wondering again and again, but could not find any solution. The lead is not a lead at all. The article wrongly contains huge original research. Its sources are not to be accepted at all. It wrongly contains imaginary long list of so-called slaves. Probably you are right: the word 'servant' is mistranslated to slave. Now, what to do? -AsceticRosé 13:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We need to look through the sources all over again, the article gives over 80 sources, many items are repeated (for example a book by Muir). We need to take a look at the following sources:

You are pathetic. Just cause I pointed out the flaws about the Abu Bakr article which clearly has multiple issues with it and just cause you don't like the circle calligraphy image, your gonna report me. Im so scared (sarcasm). Peace. Zabranos (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AsceticRose - thanks for your comment on my proposed addition to the Jesus in Islam article. I'm actually brand new to wikipedia so really appreciate your comments. I have gone into the talk aspect of the message and listed some proposed changes for the first few sentences of the article in hopes that people will give me some feedback before I bluster ahead with any more ideas. do let me know when you think if you have the time. Best wishes, Gabarker (talk) 09:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ascetic Rose - I'm new to wikipedia so thanks for caring enough to comment. I've done as you've suggested and left a few comments in the talk section (3rd part) of the Islam article - do let me know what you think if you have a chance, best wishes, Gabarker (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Many thanks for the fine suggestions. I have read the guidelines and like them very much. Thanks too for your comments on my proposals - I have added a comment there on the talk page just under yours to provide a reference. You mention making the changes to the article and I am curious about how this works. Are you a "lead editor" (does such a thing exist in Wikipedia)? Or can I make the change myself? It isn't essential that I make the change myself but I am just curious as to the politics of making changes. Look forward to hearing from you Gabarker Gabarker (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on your talk-page. -AsceticRosé 18:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - many thanks for the reply! I appreciate all of your tips. Yes, I have tried out a few edits but wondered if the Jesus in Islam might be different. Thanks for clarifying all of that. I hear what you are saying about privacy - and I may end up going that way, but for now I will try being public. Yes, real life does have its challenges! But, like you, I feel that wikipedia is a fantastic way of being connected to our ever-changing world . Best wishes, Gabarker (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]