User talk:BhaiSaab/A1

Style

I've not looked at Hinduism - I'll check it out - but that's not good style. Good information, but not good style. We shouldn't be trying to maximize information/sentence. Different points deserve their own sentences.Timothy Usher 04:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Please do return; we work well together.Timothy Usher 05:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Alright; I'll take a look later or perhaps tomorrow. joturn e r 01:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I really can't

Dear BrotherSir :)

It is sweet of you to think of nominating me for admin, but I'm afraid I'll have to turn it down. I get in too many fights and I do lose my temper. I have borderline Aspergers Syndrome and social skills are not my strongest point. Having just gotten myself involved in an Arbcom case (I defended someone, was attacked, and narrowly escaped being branded an "edit warrior"), I don't think an adminship would even pass at this point.

I do very much appreciate the compliment. Zora 11:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal position

Thank you for your question. Portal links should be placed at the end of the article, in the See Also section as per Wikipedia:Portal#How_to_find_portals. I mistakenly placed the Islam portal in external links, but it is now in the correct position. I have also changed the other articles you highlighted. Green Giant 22:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal protection

Done. -- Cheers Szvest 10:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

browser bar formatting

Thanks for the heads-up, and sorry for the revert. Maybe that discussion should be linked from the template.--ragesoss 22:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JP cartoon victims

You might be interested in the table I've just created, which lists Wikipedias JP-cartoon victims. Raphael1 16:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't matter

If you feel that there is a problem with some of the other articles regarding religion, then I suggest you go and fix them. There is not any rules that says that unless all other articles regarding all other religions include something, then it can't be in the islam article. We have been discussing what links to include re criticism in the islam article, and we have been voting about it. The concensus was clear, and the decision was to include this link. -- Karl Meier 08:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing is that you should quit stalking me. It is not allowed, and If you continue your current behavior I'll report you and make sure that you get blocked. Please see WP:Stalking -- Karl Meier 08:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove the dmoz criticism link in the Islam article

We had a long discussion of link policy more than a year ago, I think. We had dozens of links, proselytizing sites (from all sorts of groups, big and small, mainstream and wacko) and vitriolic anti-Islam sites. People were fighting over links all the time. So we said, NO proselityzing sites, NO criticism sites; we'd just put up the links to the DMOZ directories, which link to everything. We didn't have to pick and choose, or fight over links.

If we're going to link to the pro-Islam DMOZ directory, it's only fair to link to the anti-Islam directory. That policy has kept things under control for a long time. Don't mess with it, please. Zora 08:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are supposed to present both sides of an issue. You can't just say that all criticism of Islam is supposed to go into the "Criticism" article and can be ruthlessly expunged elsewhere. That is trying to manipulate readers and it violates Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Without a neutrality policy, this encyclopedia would not exist. You will have no success in trying to change it. You can make yourself, and others, very unhappy if you TRY to do so, but what's the point? Just accept that we have to be neutral, and then try to make sure that things really ARE neutral. There's a lot in WP that isn't. Zora 17:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BrotherSir :) you raise a very good point. I know about the agreement because I was one of the editors who fought over it. The discussion is buried in the archives of the talk page, and it would be a major effort to dig it out. However, it should be posted permanently at the top of the talk page so that new editors can get up to speed quickly. I think I'll ask at the Village Pump for comments on how this can be done. Thank you for pointing to a big problem in "how things work". Zora 18:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islam in the US

I had written what I though a fair, neutral presentation. Then CltFn turned it into an indictment of US Muslims as terrorists. If you think the article is bad, user the history tab and look at my version before it was edited.

Gosh I'm tired of dealing with this. I'm not a Muslim, but I do want to be fair. Zora 02:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been accused of being a Muslim. Funny, coz I'm a Buddhist. Of course, I've also been accused of being anti-Muslim. Zora 02:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

Well you are free read into it whatever you like, but if you have specific facts that you wish to challenge , then go ahead. --CltFn 04:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try to focus on the articles rather than on the editors ok? If you want to discuss certain points, OK, but we do not need to begin accusing others and pointing fingers.--CltFn 05:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad

It may sound awkward but whatever goes there needs to get the story straight and not try to demonize Muhammad nor glorify him. Don't hesitate to edit that bit (if you haven't already) and copy-edit the wording to make it sound better but keep the essentials there if you would. Netscott 19:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I agree with Mpatel as the wording you changed it to just sounded odd... :-) I reallize that my wording might have sounded awkward to you but for native communciators it sounds "encyclopedic". Netscott 19:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per your request

Read the next paragraph of the article: allowing the rape of female slaves doesn’t sound like recommending kindness to me - if you have a different perspective to share, I’d be interested to hear it.

And hey, since we’re chatting: don’t act as Amibidhrohi’s meatpuppet, as you did on Dhimmi [1]. The posting of spam [2], [3] is bad enough without you responding to it.Timothy Usher 05:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surena

Because Surena has dumped lots of patent nonsense into Iranian Revolution. Pecher ^Talk 07:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Muslims in mosques

As other users have pointed out, using original research to suppress material from scholarly sources is unacceptable. Pecher ^Talk 07:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watching Talk:Mosque; there is no need to fill my talk page with reminders. Pecher ^Talk 21:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your email: there are plenty of other, cheaper sources. For example, The Mosque: History, Architectural Development & Regional Diversity by Martin Frishman and Hasan-Uddin Khan costs a trifle, but is considered the basic reference text about mosques. BTW, the article does not use this book now. Pecher ^Talk 21:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good bye

It seems like I will leave Wikipedia soon. It has been my pleasure to work with you. See: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Raphael1 Raphael1 19:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure I could, but honestly if the Arbitration commitee doesn't understand my issue, I don't think I will. Raphael1 10:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either the new username would behave according to the same pattern, and be immediately recognized as the previous user, or it would change its ways, in which case there'd be no problem.Timothy Usher 10:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your VandalProof Application

Dear BhaiSaab,

Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact with the new 1.2 version release it has even more power. As such we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that that you have too few edits in the mainspace. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again in the not too distant future. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof.

[WP:3RR]]

BhaiSaab, you've violated 3RR. I suggest you self-revert before I report you.Timothy Usher 01:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]