User talk:Anonymous editor

Feel free to leave me a message below I usually reply to messages on the talk page of the user who left the message but many time you can also find replies here. I will delete any messages that I find useless.

Old discussion archives 1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10

Thank you!

It's kind of you to speak up for me, especially given the many times we've butted heads. Fair, straight, clean, honest -- thanks! Zora 19:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

A Question

Hi Anonymous editor,

Would you please let me know if there is any wiki policy that requires people to discuss controversial changes on the talk page before applying them to the article. I want to remind someone who is doing this over and over to some article. Thanks --Aminz 21:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Charter

Well, it made it, though it was a bit combative for my tastes and I don't feel particularly worthy anymore. Thanks for your contributions. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

USC Qur'an templates

Hi Anonymous editor,

I've expanded Tom harrison's USC Qur'an template to accomodate several other display options, as follows:

^{[Quran 009:010]} (the original template)

^{[Quran 009:010]}

As you see, the link is the same. All these do is allow us to choose whether the word "Qur'an" displays (in case it's already been mentioned, seeing "Qur'an" everywhere can be redundant), and to include the range in the link display (even though of course it still starts in the same place) where appropriate. Shame about the zeros, but I don't know how to automatically pad the inputs.

Don't use them yet; I still want to make sure the template names are good and won't need to be changed.

I'm also cooking up some Hadith templates for the same site. Any feedback?Timothy Usher 07:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see it when it's done. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

joturner has made some improvements - we no longer need to input or display three digit values, as the zeros are now magically added. Also, we've decided not to include "Qur'an" in the display, so the four templates will be reduced to two, if not one (still haven't heard back about the range problem).

In the meantime, I've taken a chance in the intro to Islam. After all the controversy on Muhammad re central figure/major figure/founder etc., what's your opinion of this:

"Islam is a monotheistic religion centered on the text of the Qur'an."

Do you think that fair?Timothy Usher 05:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

That seems fair. I have condensed the next sentence a little but yes it's good. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: your diff [1]

“A person who truly believes in the meaning of these words is a Muslim.”

“However, for practical reasons one may need to recite the words in the presence of witnesses to become Muslim...”

Saying someone is already a Muslim, but then must do something else to become a Muslim is contradictory. Your second version was fine. Just wanted to let you know why I wrote that in my edit summary.Timothy Usher 02:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It just sounded like a repeat that's why I was testing how it would sound. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Islamic scripture template news

1) Template:Quran-usc has been altered in two respects:

a) it’s no longer required to input three digits - this is automated thanks to joturner.

b) the template no longer includes “Qur’an” in the bluelighted display. Editor may choose to write it or not (or “Sura”, or “verse”, etc.) according to context.

c) thus the “-num” variants are redundant and should not be used.

2) The “range display” problem is still not solved - more information coming soon.

3) Template:Bukhari-usc is operative, with three variables (volume, book, hadith), and automated tridigitation as per Quran-usc.

4) Template:Quran-usc-num, Template:Quran-usc-numrange and Template:Buhari are defunct and should be deleted.Timothy Usher 07:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Jinnah

Hi AE - your removal of the "non-religious" note is in IMO, not correct. Rediff.com is a respectable news site - a less credible source was replaced in favor of this upon the request of user:Green Giant. If you have issues with this point, please discuss it before removing the information. Rama's Arrow 20:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

As a Pakistani, I know that it ia a fact that Muhammad Ali Jinnah was not a practicing Muslim he ate pork and drank alcohal when he was in England. So your misinformed deletions and objections are unacceptable.Siddiqui 20:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is with sources, so if you can find a history source which correctly states that he did then that source would be fine. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have good intentions

Anonymous editor, we may disagree on the arabic-english names, but I just wanted to let you know that I have good intentions in all these. --Aminz 23:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes I know. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yet when I advocated the same changes, you weren't so sure.Timothy Usher 21:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

We all here have good intentions but sometimes just don't agree with each other. Muslims have respect for the word "Allah" but on the other hand, many Non-Muslims think Muslims are worshiping a different God. I am really angry at Martin Luther. This guy, I believe, had a significant share in Non-Muslim's misunderstanding of Islam. Timothy thinks we should keep the word "Allah" in Qur'anic quotes but use "God" in the text itself. It seems to me to be a good idea. What do you think Anonymous editor? Again, I know that the word "Allah" by itself is important for Muslims.

Let me provide another example: It is about the words "Messiah", "christ" and "anointed". They all have the same meaning. According to Gary Miller:" The meaning of the Hebrew word "Messiah" is "God's anointed." Gary Miller claims that "Even Cyrus the Persian is called 'Messiah,' or 'the anointed,' in Isaiah Chapter 45. This verse has been translated in a misleading way...Here, when it refers to Cyrus, they translated the Hebrew word "Messiah" with "God's anointed." But in places where the Bible is talking about Jesus, when the term "Messiah" appears, instead of translating it as "anointed," they simply transliterate it so that it reads "Messiah." This word "Messiah" is in the Greek equivalent written as "Christ" and in fact often appears this way in the Greek Septuagint. Miller claims that there is a conspiracy to give us the impression that there is only one Messiah, one Christ and no other."

Salam --Aminz 09:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

"Again, I know that the word "Allah" by itself is important for Muslims." - it shouldn't be, as the phrase al-ilah, from which Allah derives, has been used for false gods as well. It is in truth as arbitrary as English God, a mere artifact of linguistic history, not any kind of personal name of God.

Miller is correct. Messiah is merely Hebrew for "annointed." Translations ought not be misused to to create the illusion of difference where there is none.Timothy Usher 09:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, please do a favor to me. It may seem strange to you but Many Muslim have veneration for some words (especially "Allah"). They think God is better to be called by the names "Allah" ; "Al-Rahman" (the mercyful) and so on. Please, please understand them. It is quite natural that they want to use these words. Had I not seen how some Non-Muslims have misunderstood Islam because of these words, I would not have liked changing the arabic words to english ones. --Aminz 09:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately, there is a place where Arabic terms may be used liberally and without scrutiny. Indeed, one may (and does) even translate English terms such as "Jesus", "Christianity" and "United States" into Arabic. That place is here [2].Timothy Usher 10:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Which to link to?

What Wikisource page do you think I should link to? Should I link directly to the Surat text itself, or the general Qu'ran page? There's several texts available... ~MDD4696 20:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

you are doing a fine job. Keep it up

Esperanza edit by Bhadani

AE, recently User:Bhadani made an edit to the Esperanza talk page claiming that you were "probably under great strain and stress for reasons beyond his control." After reviewing your talk page, where you have blanked his comments a number of times and asked him to stop posting, I considered his remarks trolling and removed them. A concerned user has asked about the reasoning behind my deletion; perhaps you would like to chip in. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 05:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh, it's good to hear that you're not actually under any "great strain and stress." Enjoy the cucumber. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 23:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

A token of my respect

This Cool as a Cucumber_Award is awarded by Bhadani to AE for always maintaining calm and composure. Certification is based on my repeated interaction with him. --Bhadani 10:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

My dear friend AE, I marvel at the depth of your maturity and the calm and composure displayed by you in spite of interaction sometimes bordering on insanity. 'Useless' is a relative term – my messages to you which you termed as useless were useful indeed to me as proved by the hindsight – to understand you and your personality. Please accept the barnstar which I am presenting to you as a token of my regards to your professional attitude in building the Project, Better than the Best. We shall do it AE as we are the most vibrant and resilient virtual community of the present age. May this Akshaya Tritiya bring more prosperity to the Project! Kindly reposition & resize this symbol of my respect to you in anyway you may wish. Regards. --Bhadani 10:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I really hope now that you will stop with the useless messages. Thank you. Regards, --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Promise. Now, I do not require to do such thing: your credibility has been certified beyond doubt!!! Still I maintain useless is a relative term. --Bhadani 09:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This is Moe

Hello Anonymous editor, just thought I would let you know that I was leaving Wikipedia, but before I left, I finally got a picture of thyself of onto Wikipedia. (I know great timing for me to post a picture of myself, right?) This is my final gift to my friends. Later! PS. Try not to laugh to hard at my ugly mug ok? Moe ε 14:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Al-Inshirah et. al.

Hi Anonymous editor. I noticed you added an external link to the text of Al-Inshirah after I changed the included text into a link to Wikisource. Your external link seems redundant, so I'm not really sure why you added it. I was planning on going back and finishing the rest of the Sura articles to be consistent with the Wikisource template. Could you fill me in? Thanks! ~MDD4696 20:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Timothy

I'll chime in in a moment, during a break from AP studying. Is there a central location for this discussion or is it just Timothy's talk page? joturner 23:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for a mediation page

Anonymous editor, can you please let me know your opinion regarding having a mediation page on this topic. Thanks --Aminz 00:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of making a link on my page and asking everybody to discuss the issue there. How is that? -- Aminz 00:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, your argument makes sense. But many people may forget that these two are the same: e.g. "it isn't so clear to me that Garbiel is referring to the angel that talked to Muhammad. However, it is clear that Jibril is." And the problem becomes much more serious for the word "Allah". --Aminz 01:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What really really bothers me is that some hostile people towards Islam are misusing the issue. They say Muhammad was possessed by Satan. Muhammad recieved revelation from "Allah" so "Allah" is satan. --Aminz 01:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, I agree that clarifying things in the intro makes things more clear for many people. But let me show you a counter example. I was moving around changing some of the words "Allah" to "God". Guess what? Someone asked me: "Just want to be clear on this... When Jews refer to Yahweh they are actually referring to Allah?" Then I provided quotes from Maimoinds and so on to PROVE that they are the same. Please note that these are educated editors. The sentence ""it isn't so clear to me that Garbiel is referring to the angel that talked to Muhammad. However, it is clear that Jibril is." was written by an "admin". --Aminz 01:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, I completely agree that if someone really knows a little bit about Islam will know that "Allah" is God. The problem is that most of the people don't know Islam. It is potentially very easy for people to think that "Allah" is a different God, because they have different words. I think our understanding of the words are based on the contexts that those words are spoken (and I think a child learns the words through their usage). In natural language no two words are 100% synonym. They maybe very close but not 100% synonym. So, our mind likes to make distinction between different words. I think having two words for the same thing is considered something extra and will be removed through evolution of language. Now, we have imported the word "Allah" from outside to English language. I believe it is quite natural that people think Muslims are worshipping a different god named "Allah". I was particularly annoyed when I saw the article "Islamism" just because of the word "Islamism". I believe it is a conspiracy. I need to go now but will be back soon and will explain more.--Aminz 01:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

But the problem is that the majority of people don't learn about the words in wikipedia. They learn the words from media and others within the context they are used. If the word "Allah" is only used in an Islamic context, then most of people (especially uneducated ones) will think Allah IS the God of Muslims (and this the reality we are observing now). I believe unless we use the word God over and over in Islamic contexts, we will not be able to correct this view. Another way and maybe a better way is using the word Allah in christian or Jewish religous contexts which I don't think I will be able to do that in wikipedia. I think if we import the word "Isa" to english language, we will make the situation even worst. --Aminz 01:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

An important point to both of you, as relative to all of this talk of transliterated Arabic terms and the English language on Wikipedia it may not be clear in your minds.: Wikipedia is not a dictionary and thereby is not a usage guide, or slang and idiom guide. To quote that policy here for absolutely clarity, "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., should be used. ". Editors are to write articles on how things are, not to write articles based on how things should be. Netscott 18:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "Allah is God" and I am writing the articles on how things are. Allah is a glorified proununciation for the God that People of the Book already know. It is a misconception that Muslims are worshipping a different God than People of the Book worship.

There is no reason that all religons except Islam should have the right to use the word "God" but when it comes to Islam we need to mention Allah. That's discrimination and utter injustice to Muslims. It is like forcing Jews to use Yahew instead of God in their articles.

A good compromise suggested by Timothy which I think is really good is using the word "God" within the typical texts of wikipedia but using "Allah" in Qur'anic verses and quotes. This should make everything clear. --Aminz 20:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, moving the article specifically will not really clear the misconception. People who don't want to believe the figures are the same will always do that. But in Wikipedia, we can use the actual name for Isa as the Islamic figure that exists in his own importance not because an article on Jesus exists. It doesn't mean that if a figure also exists in Christianity too that this figure becomes only an article based on the perspective. Isa in his own self can have an article just like Yeshua and Jesu that do exist. It's a different belief and the entire reason why the articles is here in the first place. It isn't just that because a figure exists in two religions that we can not have the real name of the figure being used as the name. The argument is not just the English language translation, which like I said is not a good argument since we have many articles named on figures in other languages. Just about all the other language biography articles and articles on important figures are that way. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Might you provide us some examples of biographies with an analogous fork (excluding Islam-related articles, naturally)?Timothy Usher 05:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well if you read my comment, you can start with Yeshua and Jesu as examples. I wasn't talking about "pov-forks" specifically. I said we have many articles named on figures in other languages. Just face that the page belongs there and the only reason you're doing is because of your pov and thinking that your edits are the best ones and only ever made to articles. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 05:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeshua is not a biography, nor is Jesu. Anything else?Timothy Usher 05:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again read my comment. This is clearly the same case as Isa. I don't hear you wanting to move the Yeshua page. Why is that? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 05:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Because these articles are about the foreign language words themselves. As you've written, "Just about all the biography articles and articles on important figures are that way," ([3], [4]) I ask you again for examples of biographies with similar forks.Timothy Usher 05:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Read the comment again. Are you denying that Yeshua is a fork? Just face that editors who have worked on the articles for a long time are not going to watch you ruin them just because of your arrogance and arbitrary actions. And I really find that you are horrible at making an arguement. You are asking for something completely unrelated without checking what the discussion is about. I hope you stop arguing over useless matters and reverting. I ask you again to tell me what's the difference between Yeshua and Isa? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 05:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You've evaded my question. You said biographies, so provide examples. Yeshua and Isa, like Allah, are about the foreign-language words themselves. They are not competing biographies. Examples, please.Timothy Usher 05:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Anonymous editor,

I believe what we are discussing here is more like a real life problem rather than a mathematical problem. I don’t believe we can say one is true and the other is wrong. One position maybe better than the other but I don’t believe one of them is right and the other is wrong. Arguments for both sides could be presented. And I think all of us have our own underlying motivations which will dominate our position towards the issue. The arguments can always be produced. My underlying motivation is of course very clear. I want to avoid misunderstandings of Islam as much as possible. I guess your underlying motivation is to make sure that people do not look at the Islamic concepts from their own (e.g. Christian) perspective. I guess you believe that having different words helps the readers to distinguish between the concepts (or beliefs) and clear up their minds for new information. Am I right? Though we should not mention our underlying motivation in wikipedia, but can you please let me know if I have understood you correctly. I believe unless we don’t discuss the matter at the level of underlying motivations, we will not be able to get at consensus regarding this issue. Maybe we all look for the same thing at a higher level. Thanks, --05:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Islam Peer Review

I am requesting a peer review for the Islam article. If you have any suggestions, please let us know. Thank you very much. BhaiSaab 01:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Allah

How is my edits to this article. I tried to keep the important points of your edit and Timothy's edit+ adding some points on my own. I also wrote a summary for "Islamic concept of God". How is that? thx. --Aminz 09:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was pretty good. I had some problems with it and I fixed them. The introduction is different adds more besides Timothy's version and that's probably what I like better than his version. But I still think that it should be understood that there was a reason these articles are like this in the first place. He should stop thinking that his edits are the best ones that ever happened. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Anonymous Editor. How was my summary for "Islamic concept of God"?

One thing: It was pointed out that "The One God" is not grammatically correct (though it is Islamically correct; The verse 2:133 precisely says "The One Allah" and I was reminded of this verse when I saw your edit). Maybe we should say "The One True God"? But I don't know if this phrase has been appeared in Qur'an or not. I would like to use a Qur'anic phrase. Any suggestion? --Aminz 05:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Page moves and changes

Hey Jordan. Timothy has been making many abritrary changes to articles recently like moving Isa to Jesus in Islam and blanking and redirecting Jibril to Gabriel. He is making many changes and breaking rules while doing it. Feel free to step in and give your opinion. This should not continue like this. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

No location, he's just doing it as he wants and ignoring the discussion that took place over the last few days on the Qur'an page. For now you can discuss on the talk page of Isa. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Now he's just arguing for his sake. He moved the page arbitrarily, edited it several times and changed all the names. Completely ignores all discussion and expects us to keep his edits. Please join in. This is silly and he's just doing it to ruin the Islamic pages. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 05:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't want to step foot in these rapidly-moving waters because I feared I'd be swept in by the undertow, but it looks like I'll have to just walk right in and hope this river is really just a shallow creek. joturner 05:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)