This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. The Helpful One 20:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Thehelpfulone, it's my honor to be a part of the team :) AdvertAdam ^talk 22:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

re your comment [1], that is of course consistent with our RS policy, but not relevant to the specific content removed at Judaization of Jerusalem.All scholarly historians writing on the history of Jerusalem expound on the Bible's version of its history, whether or not they are trying to debunk the Bible. Thus, Judaization of Jerusalem, or any article in which the history of Jerusalem is relevant, cannot be considered a complete article unless it included the Bible version of its history. Best, -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Judaization of Jerusalem, and all similar articles, are based on political arguments, not religions. Therefore, when you're citing the Bible, you need to say that Judaism believes such and such and such, which doesn't make sense in a political-based argument. I believe in Judaism, so does a big percentage of the world's population, but that doesn't make it accurate.

Concluding, when you write about history in an Encyclopedia, you need to use reliable secondary historian sources, not beliefs. PEACE! AdvertAdam ^talk 22:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The content at hand was clearly attributed, "according to the Bible."-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but what does a belief have to do with a political argument?! AdvertAdam ^talk 23:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

All these "political arguments" are substantially effected by religious beliefs. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

These arguments are based on pushing personal religious POVs, which are based on human scholars, not religious prophets! So, a religious argument has been change to politics, because of human interference. Anyways, I don't wanna get into an argument with you about that :). If you're speaking about belief, the Bible explains in Isaiah 42, one of the last prophets, that a messenger from Kedar (Second son of Ishmael--Mecca) is bringing a book of law. Then stated that God let Jerusalem to fall!!! So it's all God's plan, but we don't want to change this page to a forum.

What's important is that this article is showing historical events, which can only be proven by historians. Again, belief has nothing to do with history. You can only sequence history with secondary sources, especially in a multi-faith article. AdvertAdam ^talk 00:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The personal religious POV's pushed by religious prophets is what has historically determined world events. Thus, the personal religious POV's are relevant to an historical scholarly analysis and indeed these personal religious POV's have been examined at length by human scholars.

This is very simple and you don't have to reply with rambling speeches and non-sequiters. I'm not explaining it again.-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I said scholars, not prophets! Prophets aren't here to judge who's right and wrong. There's no prove that these are the words of prophets, from a religious pov. Any of our beliefs has no place here.

It's pretty straigt forward, from my first message. Religious scholars are for religious articles, while historians are for historical articles. Look for support on its talkpage if you still insist on your changes. AdvertAdam ^talk 17:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the project! It's great to have you onboard. Just a few things you might wish to know.

• Did you know you can log you progress? It's true! Just go to the main project page, fing the link to the log page and follow instructions there.
• Why not let everyone know you're part of the project? Place the userbox on your user page. The cod can be found on the project main page.
• When you give a barnstar, let people know that you're part of this project by putting a link bellow the barnstar template.

Thank's for joining. Oddbodz ( talk) 14:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC) (Project Founder and Co-Ordernator)

It was nice to see your recent comments on the Qur'an article. Please enter your vote in the poll that is being conducted for a return to the long-standing spelling. Abdullajh ( talk) 04:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks... My long-time concern was based on the pressure of many editors to change it to Koran. However, if we can get it back to the original correct pronunciation, Qur'an, we should be able to put a stop on any further spelling changes, I hope. AdvertAdam ^talk 06:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You'll probably see my comments on the talk page for our Jihad article. Since I left David a colorful graphic that provides helpful resources at the top of his user page, I thought you might like one, too, even though it's late to say "Welcome to Wikipedia" for you. If you don't want it there, just remove it. Or if you don't know how, and I'm not around at my talk page to ask, the friendly folks at the help desk can show you how, too. Best regards,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 12:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, thank you! Your welcome template is nice anyways :). It's funny how you mentioned our Jihad :p, as people like to debate with books that no-one follows and compare it to the official religious sources. See you there AdvertAdam ^talk 22:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I have edited various articles on Christian saints and I feel the Muslim saint articles are cluttered in the majority, and many lack infoboxes or even references. Do you mind helping in cleaning up the articles? More importantly, prophets - such as Lot, Saleh, Shoaib and others - which Islam venerates need cleaning up and infoboxes, so please help. This template is on prophets of Islam identified outside the Qur'an. Tell me if any additions are needed:

Thanks!-- Imadjafar ( talk) 09:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer, as a minority really cares about Muslim saints. There's two major things you need to keep in mind regarding these article, but I know that you know so anyways: (1) Most of the English names of Judeo-Christian saints were taken from Hebrew, while Muslim saints are taken from Arabic. (2) The Bible is a historical narrative giving details of the story or future divinity, while the Qur'an is just a guidance, in addition to showing examples what previously happened to believers and nonbelievers; while sometimes confirming the Bible divinity and giving it more details.

I'd love to work with you on these, as I know the Muslim articles are a big mess and full of crap. I've read some weired things, because the editors don't read the Biblical narratives. As an example, many Muslims think that Aaron and Moses are like a spiritual brothers to the Virgin Mary. They don't realize that the Qur'an is talking about two different Marys (Mother of Jesus and the Grand Mother of John the Baptist).

Anyways, as the Qur'an isn't a narrative, it would be lovely to start joining the articles whenever I get a certain Muslim article fixed. Because some stories in the Bible don't stand alone and some stories in the Qur'an stand alone, which makes more sense when they're together as different details. As an example, Isaiah is not mentioned in the Qur'an but he prevented the Messiah and the Prophet and the Qur'an by the name of their tribes. I saw some scholars that recognized Isaiah too, so I probably can find sources to other Hebrew figures if I can find their Arabic names.

Let me know what you think in general, to know where should I start. Thanks AdvertAdam ^talk 10:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, for the Moses/Aaron/Mary thing, the spiritual brothers is the most valid fact, for the Blessed Virgin was of priestly lineage, and the fact that she is the Daughter of Imran (cf. Gospel of Luke, where Saint Elizabeth, Prophet John's mother, is called a Daughter of Aaron) explains her descent. We do not know Prophet John's grandmother by name, as Prophet Zechariah's parents and Saint Elizabeth's remain unknown and unmentioned. Nonetheless, your opinion may be valid, if further explained. Thank you for being so enthusiastic about the Saint articles. Christian saint articles, such as Saint Bede the Venerable or Saint Francis of Assisi, are superb, while Muslim saint articles are lacking. I edited the Hasan of Basra article as well as Saint Ebrahim, son of Adham, and your help could be provided on Rabia Basri, Uwais Qarni and the multitude of articles dealing with saints and mystics which are present on the following table:

Part of a series on Islam Sufism
Tomb of Abdul Qadir Gilani, Baghdad, Iraq
Ideas Abdal Al-Insān al-Kāmil Baqaa Dervish Dhawq Fakir Fana Hal Haqiqa Ihsan Irfan Ishq Karamat Kashf Lataif Manzil Ma'rifa Maqam Murid Murshid Nafs Nūr Qalandar Qutb Silsila Sufi cosmology Sufi metaphysics Sufi philosophy Sufi poetry Sufi psychology Salik Tazkiah Wali Yaqeen
Practices Anasheed Dhikr Haḍra Muraqabah Qawwali Sama Whirling Ziyarat
Sufi orders Alians Ba 'Alawi Bektashi Qadiri Chishti Naqshbandi Shadhili Suhrawardi Rifa`i Khalwati Rahmani Badawi Desuqi Tijani Darqawi Idrisi Senusi Bayrami Jelveti Maizbhandari Malamati Mouridi Sülaymaniyya Salihiyya Azeemia Kubrawi Mevlevi Shattari Uwaisi Hurufi Ni'matullāhī Nuqtavi Qalandari Safavi Zahabiya Akbari Galibi Haqqani Anjuman Inayati Issawiyya Jerrahi Madari Mahdavi Noorbakshi Zahedi Zikri
List of sufis Notable early Notable modern Singers
Topics in Sufism Tawhid Sharia Tariqa Haqiqa Ma'rifa Art History Sufi music Persecution Ziyarat
Islam portal
v t e

I have extensively tried editing such urgent prophet articles as the one on Elijah, Job and Elisha, Hud and Idrisbut your help would be highly helpful in other articles, especially dealing with those prophets not mentioned in the Qur'an. Moreover, this table I made may help you in adding information:

When you speak of joining articles, what exactly do you mean? My main project right now is to continue editing articles on the Disciples of Christ, including Saint Peter and Saint John; perhaps you could help.-- Imadjafar ( talk) 17:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I actually started a discussion about zakat for nonmuslims, so if you disagree and remove my later edits you should participate in that first. Davidelah ( talk) 21:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not gonna open a long discussion on each article. Many examples from the Prophet consider Zakat to non-Muslim neighbors and relatives are preferable over far Muslims. Follow-up on your talk-page. AdvertAdam ^talk 21:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

So, you want to help on working together to clean up the articles on prophets and saints? If so, we could discuss useful references.-- Imadjafar ( talk) 19:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Definitely, and thanks again for the invite. Btw, thanks for adding Prophet Ishmael, as I thought that Jews would revert my edit. I've had problems in that article before. Also, I've added a suggestion of replacing a naked pic of Hagar to another exact art with clothes on, as the content has nothing to do with her nakedness. The stupid thing is that even my third opinion request was denied! It's stupid how they push their belief that Hagar was a sex-slave and have no proves for it. She's the only member of Abraham's family with no clothes.

Anyways, my point about Marry, is that the mother of Zakariya in the Qur'an is Marry (which I think is the physical daughter of Imran). The most verse that got my intention is Mary, daughter of Umran, telling God that she's giving the soul of her baby to God (asking him to bless her baby). Of course Mary the Virgin could not do that, because God gave her that soul. Also, that Zakariya was wondering how come his mom is more blessed than him while he's a prophet. Actually, I found that this is the most logical relation: that there are two Marys, and Mary the Virgin has a brother named Aaron. Therefore, John the Baptist is linked by blood to two important tribes of Israel.

The Qur'an also says that people told Mary the Virgin when she came back with a baby, "O Mary, sister of Aaron, your father was a wise man. How can you do something like this." Then she pointed her finger to Jesus and he started talking in his cradle. You know that at that time, they would of killed Mary if they thought that she made adultery. Anyways, it's just a thought. I'm sure I can find good sources, because I've herd Rabbis saying that there is two Marys, too.

Overall, let me get rid of the mess of claims on me, as I've stopped editing till I get it cleared. A third disputer said that I'm pushing a "western pop" view of Islam, hehe (even while my sources are from Arabic scholars). The dispute is full of crap, so I don't want to make it more confusing for the admins. I've already got punished for edit warring, so I'm just waiting to clear the rest of the nonsense.

Thanks again, and see you around soon. Sorry for the delay, but I will put more time in your suggestions AdvertAdam ^talk 22:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I read your explanation but I am sorry to say it does not hold up to even the most basic validity. Perhaps a little more research would be needed, and then we could discuss further. For we know as a fact that the woman who wanted to dedicate her child to God was Saint Anne (ar. Hannah), mother of the Blessed Virgin Mary (cf. commentary on Tafsir Tabari, Abdullah Yusuf Ali: Holy Qur'an, as well as the Encyclopedia of Islam). Mary did, after all, come through priestly lineage, being a Levite. Just as Muhammad referred to Ishmael, Solomon, Idris and Jesus as Brothers, the Hebrews too used to use the name of a venerable elder to designate ancestors. Thus, Mary, who was directly in the line of Aaron, would have been called the Sister of Aaron. Nonetheless, this we can discuss later. You stated that they view Hagar (blessings be on her) as a sex-slave. They maintain Hagar was a concubine, which is rejected in Islam. But yes, the pictures must be suited to make them respectable for all viewers. Your edits have to be balanced and well-written, those are the two main things. As for the Ishmael box, the Saint infobox is applicable to figures venerated in all traditions, so it can be named 'Prophet Ishmael'. I can't tell which edits are Jewish or not in origin but I am satisfied with all edits related to Judaism and Islam and indeed more effort must be made to improve upon the page of Judaism and Islam itself. Indeed, contrary to popular view, I added the verses which are frequently overlooked:

• Surely those who believe; and those who are Jewish, and the Christians, and the Sabians, in fact whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does good works; they will have their reward with their Lord, and there is no fear upon them, nor will they grieve. (Qur'an II: 62)
• Surely those who believe and those who are Jewish, and the Sabians, and the Christians, whoever of them believes in God and the Last Day and does good works; then they will have nothing to fear nor will they grieve. (Qur'an V: 69)
• They are not all the same, from the people of the Book are a nation that is upright; they recite the revelations of God during the night hours and they prostrate.
  They believe in God and the Last Day and order kindness and prohibit vice, and they hasten in goodness; these are of the good doers.
  And what they do of good will not be turned back, and God is aware of the righteous. (Qur'an III: 113-115)
• And from the people of the Book are those who believe in God and what was sent down to you and what was sent down to them; fearful to God, they do not purchase with the revelations of God a cheap price. These will have their reward with their Lord. For God is swift in reckoning. (Qur'an III: 199)

Indeed, Muslim/Christian or Jewish/Christian or Muslim/Jewish articles are tender issues and need to be handled with care, for in the hands of many writers and editors they can become biased depending upon the religion the writer/editor follows. Moreover, adherents of all three faiths, are prone to reviling the other two. Indeed for Muslims, the kindness should be automatic, judging from how explicitly the Qur'an tells Muslims about the faithful of the other faiths. All this is important to keep in mind. I'm not blaming you in any way, so do not take any of this the wrong way; I am simply showing you that which most overlook. So, yes, once you have sorted out your problems, help in editing the prophet articles!-- Imadjafar ( talk) 21:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Good, thanks for your nice edits. You can check my blog (on my userpage), as I always work to show the connections between real religions. Regarding Hagar--pbuh, I've also sent a message to an active admin asking for advice without pointing to the article, but he hasn't replied either. The concubine of Hagar is actually recognized in Islam, but the problem is that the term itself is mostly misunderstood in the West (especially our era). The Bible and Qur'an show Abraham's love for Hagar, but criticizing Hagar and Ishmael is related to a long political issue. Anyways, I stopped editing for three days as a respect to the admins. They didn't give attention to the claim so I won't either, as long as I know I'm not doing anything wrong. Most of the hatred Muslims online are illiterate whom have nothing to do. They're mostly from Pakistan and India, even though I don't like to point fingers. They even cuss and dispute me, lol. Yep, I'll be around... ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 08:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

اولا اهلا بك ايها المستخدم الموقر عذرا انا اتكلم اللغة العربية ويبدوا لي انك من امريكا لكن في صنادقك وجدت انك تسطتيع ان تساهم بالعربية لذا انت تستطيع ان تتكلمها ارجوا هذا اخي... انا عربي مسلم اعيش في تونس بتحديد انا لااعرف كثير عن ثقافتكم لكنني اعرف الكثير عن دينكم ارجو منك ان توضح لي ماهي نضرت الامريكي لي كعربي مسلم ولمذا العربي او المسلم في الاعلام الامريكي هو محض ارهابي يخيف العباد ارجوك وضح لي وشكرا. -- Iljia ( talk) 01:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope you can read my writing clearly:

شكراً ليك يا أخي العزيز... ببساطة جداً، الأمريكي بصفة عامة لا يعرف شي عن العربي ولا يعرف شي عن إسلام.

معضم الإعلام الأمريكي له أجندة معينة، وليس له تلك السيطرة على تفكير الأمريكان. معضم من يكره الإسلام يكره كل الديانات بصفة عامة. هناك تحركات جميلة للدعوة ولها تأثر جميل، حتى ولو إنّا حوالي إثنين بالمائة من السكان. مبروك عليكم تحرير تونس وعقبال باقي الدول العربية.

~ AdvertAdam ^talk 02:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

اخي ارجوا مساعدة: انا كتبت مقالة باسم مشاكس (شعور) بالعربية و بحثت في الجانب الانجليزي عن مقالة مشاكس فلم اجدها علما انني لااعرف بالانجليزية الا قليلا لذا ارجوا ان تتفضل وتساعدني اخي على ترجمة مقالتي الى الانجليزية او انشاء مقالة بنفسك لاثراء محتواكم واذ اردت فتح نقاش معي عن اي موضوع فانا مستعد واحب واعشق فتح الحوارات-- Iljia ( talk) 13:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

الرجاء الإنتباه يا أخي العزيز إن ويكي الإنجليزية فيه تشديد أكثر بكثير من العربية. مقال صغير كهذا سيتم حذقه في أقل من إسبوع. حالوت البحث عن مقال قريب، ولكن المصطلحات العربية والغربية مختلفة قليلاً. أقرب شي حايكون Bullying، لأن نفس التعبير ليس مستخدم.

تفضل في أي وقت، ويمكنك إرسالي إيميل من هنا ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 08:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

		The First Steps Barnstar from WikiProject Barnstar Awarding
		This award is given to Adamrce for logging the first barnstar on the log page of the project. Oddbodz ( talk) 17:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It sure would be helpful if you would provide citations where they're needed in the Abraham lede. You seem familiar with the page. Could you please provide them? Leadwind ( talk) 05:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess you said so yourself! Then you haven't even read the headlines of the article. You're asking for citations that Abraham's life is mentioned in the Bible and Qur'an, while the whole articles is only narrating Araham's life from the Bible and Qur'an. I really can't see your point of adding a citation. No-one ever commented on something like that before. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 06:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

"You're asking for citations that Abraham's life is mentioned in the Bible and Qur'an." Sort of. What I'm really asking for is citations for the two last sentences in the lede. Who says that Abraham's role could only be fulfilled through a monotheistic covenant with YHWH? Who says that the Qur'an's stories about Abraham are similar? Maybe you could provide citations for those sentences. Leadwind ( talk) 13:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I see no sense for disputing, as you haven't even read the article you've tagged! I've added a "<-- -->" explanation on the article. Thanks for your followup and happy editing ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 08:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It's bad to remove "CN" tags without providing a citation. Leadwind( talk) 00:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It's also bad to randomly tag an article you never read. What you asked for citing is already in the article, so I respected your-type of editors and added a note explaining so. Anyways, you still didn't like it, so I added two external citations now. If you still wanna dispute, then go to its talkpage. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 05:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Leadwind ( talk) 14:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I am at loss, as to why you removed a properly referenced sentence,which said: "they were generally offensive in nature". the source mentions this, and the source is a muslim source. Furthermore, that article has been white washed. Almost all the sources in that article cite muslim sources. You also added a tag claiming that the article mis inteprets the sources???? why did you do this, to discredit the article. what is wrong with that article. is it that its not neutral? ok i will make it more neutral by adding the views of non muslim scholars if you want. then i will see what is next problem you have. you always have problems-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 19:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You DON'T have the authority to remove a heading tag without discussing it nor fixing the problem. Just as a respect to you, to not think it's a personal matter (as you always do), I won't re-tag it again for now. There's many issues in the article that I can't explain in one message. My major concern is the citations: many don't have an author nor publisher (which makes it hard to verify). Please work on this first, then we can discuss in detail on the article's talkpage. Happy editing ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 05:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Problem fixed 10 secs ago, i added back correct sources. You are wrong about "no publishers" and "hard to verify", almost everythign used are books from muslim authors, and all are direct links. going direct to the pages that are needed for reference!-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 11:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Problem was not fixed. I still have, at least, 3 "clarification needed" tags on the article. Those citations don't mention an author nor publisher, so please take care of them if they were your insertions. Again, DON'T remove more tags while a discussion is open on its talkpage. This is the second time. Holding your personal claims to yourself will be highly appreciated, and the article has a talkpage to dispute on. Take care and happy editing ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 08:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Throughout all my arguments with you, there is always recurring theme ! dont remove content or make major changes, until discussion is over. Yet you just made some major changed to that article. I dont know what kind of edits you made, but agreee with some of them, e.g removing the boxes.but disagre with removing "main article" links. however i am thinking you might have also removed some properly referenced pieces of info. i am checking this, and will revert accordingly if you did.-- Misconceptions2( talk) 11:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that you should read again what you just wrote. I made over 10 minor edits, which you called major? There were about 10 references to the same book, so I joined them. It changes nothing for the reader, and you can also review that. I've seen a sentence that was tagged with "cn" from January 2010, and I didn't remove it as a respect to you. I just put a hidden comment that it should be removed. I only removed the extra info boxes, as it was suggested by two editors in the discussion page, and I'm the third. Follow-up there and stop making assumptions on everything, please... ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 11:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

you say you removed info bxoes because of those othereditors, those other editor kept the info boxes, if u check the history. i wanted to only keep major info boxes and remove most. i also added another source for the offensive in nature claim-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 12:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, keep the discussion there... for editors to join ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 12:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

i also dont want to get involved in an edit war with you. but you removed main article tags. e.g tags like

those are only edits i reverted. i also kept your removal of the info boxes, and i added back only info boxes of major expeditions. when i say major, i mean ones with a lot of coverage. since adding info boxes to them does not make it look out of place.-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 12:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

THERE in English, THERE, THERE, THERE............... ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 12:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You seem very angry. Why dont we both go to the admin, and ask for both of us to be banned. to calm you and me down? i dont mind if the admin bans both of us, even for 10 days or 24 hours. just to calm us down, i dont mind. as it seems that it ends up as AdamRce Vs Misconceptions2 every now and then, i would no bother you, if you just stopped removing main article tags, and other referenced sentances, like the offensive claim. What do you want from me?-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 12:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

 Great! What a party, seems fine with me...  Looks like a duck to me Just be realistic and read English, THERE!!! ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 12:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

... feeding the trolls. Thanks in advance, Wasbeer 14:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I thought he was a grown-up! :P ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 20:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments like this [2] are impolite William M. Connolley ( talk) 14:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry William. I'm not trying to interfere with you, but just clarified the false-claim on another user. Happy editing... ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 20:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

No. William is the one who makes mass-deletions to whatever he disagrees with. was impolite William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I told you I'm sorry :) ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 20:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Please explain to me as to why the part on Abraham in Islam was deleted almost entirely??-- Imadjafar ( talk) 17:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't deleted anything, but re-organized the titles (keeping the narrative together based on the article's style). I do realize that the "religious traditions" need improvements, so I'll try to work on it. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 20:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's put the information about Abraham in Islam back into the lead, since the lead is supposed to be able to stand along as a concise summary of the article. Leadwind ( talk) 16:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

very good idea!-- Imadjafar ( talk) 17:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I haven't noticed that it was there then removed. I was just focusing on the list of tribes after that recent major change. Thank you both :) ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 21:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I have challenged your CSD A7 on Kollannur. It is not one of the types of articles that qualifies for CSD criteria A7. I have no objection if you want to pursue deletion of the article under an alternative deletion process. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course we're not here for challenging, but for the similar interest of improving Wiki :). I was actually passing by and suddenly started to read the article while I was thinking, "so what?!!!" :p. I'm not really sure about your point, as I thought that a family is still under that category of "un-notable individuals"; which is what I tagged it with, by my tools. Are you saying that the only proper way is to tag it with AfD, instead? Thanks for the info. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 06:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Generally the CSD criteria are strictly construed, so I would read "real person" to not extend to a family name, determining whether a family name is important is pretty tricky, and generally CSD is for things that are very clear cut. In addition to AfD though, you can always do a regular PROD. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :) ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 10:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks... ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 19:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

A polite request to merge Ibrahim Arabs article to Ishmaelites article. All the content is alread in Ishmaelites is not true! Best regards, -- Christopher Forster ( talk) 10:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The article was already deleted, sir. I highly appreciate and respect your request; however, the article was lacking in many policies. I've changed the note before deletion that the content is in the Arabs article, not just Ishmaelites. Also, Arabic language is not allowed in the English Wikipedia.

I suggest that you take a look at some policies from my userpage, then add your editions to Arabs instead. Ishmaelites are just early Arabs, so I'll try to work on merging them. Your opinions about the merging is highly welcomed, and happy editing. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 19:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You reverted 2 references. 1 which defiantly is not against wikipedia policy, this one http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=EOZZCcXbc5QC&pg=PA241

why did you do this. What is wrong with you, why do you have problem with the sentance "it was generally offensive in nature", when the references says it was. Stop trying to Whitewash islam related articles on WIKIPEDIA ! I really think you should be suspended by an amdin for constantly removing references (then adding a citation needed tag, like you did), because i feel you are trying to whitewash wikipedia (i have already seen, and have collected many edits where you have been involved in whitewashing, in my opinion)-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 14:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Please keep your opinions to yourself, and respect my talkpage. You said one is "definitely not against Wikipedia policy", meaning that you admit the other is not reliable. Anyways, the definitely one is published by "Xlibris", where its website say that it's a self-publish publisher. Please reread WP:RS and study what it says about that. I can also go to that publisher and write a book that you're not human, then I can add that statement here on Wikipedia :p. Please remove the book yourself and add back the {{cn}} tag. Take care ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 02:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Adamrce. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alertsregarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I think we should get this resolved, so it will be easier to sort out disputes in the future. Davidelah ( talk) 23:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

 Acknowledged ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 02:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Adamrce. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! FASTILY ^(TALK) 10:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for praising my edits on the Islamic views on Abraham article :) I was wondering if you could, perhaps now, take out some time to help edit the prophet articles? Many of them, I still feel are lacking, and two people editing them together would be faster!-- Imadjafar ( talk) 16:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm catching up, so I'll definitely will. I was never friends with narrative writing (I mostly write research papers and business reports), so please ce me whenever you have a better phrasing. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 13:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I was not convassing. It is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors in order to broaden the discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Canvassing. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 15:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't nice to spread your message across multiple articles' talkpages! Your insertion to WikiIslam and WikiLanguage was enough. I haven't replied to any, as William already said enough.

Regarding the article, I'm afraid that it has many inaccuracy in the story; however, I'm not sure if I'm able to get any local sources before my next visit to the Middle-East (another six months, I guess). I don't doubt its notability, but doubt the fact if any editor is willing to find real sources. I think the most challenge might be related to the different translations of the same name. I'll be commenting on the AfD anyways. Take care and happy editing... ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 00:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Judaism served as a model for "World" or monotheistic religions, and no source you can bring will date either Christianity or Islam to before common era. Its a historical fact confirmed by multidisciplinary studies. Koakhtzvigad ( talk) 11:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, Abraham is the world model of monotheism, not Judaism, Christianity, nor Islam. His six children spread the "Scrolls of Abraham" (where most of the Genesis came from) around the world, which most of the following religions andmythologies were based on it!

Please open a discussion on its talkpage if you still disagree, as a second editor was against your POV too. Thanks for your message and happy editing... ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 05:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you are editing religious fiction and not Religion. Koakhtzvigad ( talk) 10:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

What I say here is personal, and sources are also available if you want; however, the content was discussed in the article's talkpage, so you should also join there (not here). What a religious fiction is your push of a single pov in the lead of all religions! I guess everyone there is against your points, so I suggest that you find yourself some sources. Thanks and happy editing. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 10:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Everyone? Koakhtzvigad ( talk) 10:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That's what I've seen so far! Anyways, I'll probably comment last on your discussion in the article's talkpage. Happy editing... ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 06:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Butting in on a conversation I know, but the development of monotheism is a bit more complicated than just Judaism then Christianity then Islam - before Judaism there were monotheistic developments in Egyptian and Assyrian religion, and Babylon was going seriously monotheistic in the 6th century (the priests of Marduk got mad at their king because he decided that Sin, god of Haran, was the One True God instead of Marduk). Would yopu like me to edit your article a bit? PiCo ( talk) 07:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's why many editors were involved in that discussion in the article, as we were trying to avoid specify claims. Please join us, even tho I backed off when it started to become very messy and out-of-topic. Take care ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 08:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Please see my comment there. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 14:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much... ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 09:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you see anything hypocritical at all about this edit summary [3]? William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Huh? The recently weird unsourced material was removed by other editors before, and he added it with an explanation on the summary. I tried to make it clear to not follow-up in the summary, like he did right before this edit. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 09:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to start an edit-warring, but you reinserting unsourced material just because you didn't like my summary... o.O ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 10:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, seems like you really aren't prepared to think about your behaviour. Clearly I'll have to spell it out. If you tell people not to revert without using the talk page, but you yourself feel entirely free to revert without using the talk page, then you're a hypocrite William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's your opinion. Ain't any discussion suppose to relate to a content, or am I following my own rules? You weren't disputing the content, but this summary sounded like punishing an editor o.O

It's not a new behavior from you, so I'm not surprised nor did I give it a big deal. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 04:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

"Correct phrasing and removing unreferenced claims". Awwwwwww....... (Actually I was expecting Koak to jump on me). PiCo ( talk) 07:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, he probably will on the Judaism section, lol :p

The tone was too strong, and you know that none-of-it was referenced. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 08:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It came from the essay by Levenson that I mentioned on Talk - the link is in the references section (or whatever it's called) at the foot of the article. He talks about Abraham and Islam from page 35 on (that's the reference, I guess) - try this link, though I'm not sure it'll work: (you'll have to find page 35 for yourself).

You might also like this fascinating little study by Paul Veyne on whether the Greeks believed their own myths - all those gods and goddesses forever committing adultery and turning people into trees and stones: "Did the Greeks Believe...?. Not relevant to Abraham, but very interesting. PiCo ( talk) 09:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The source wasn't linked. Anyways, Abraham being a "submitter" isn't an issue of question, but I couldn't find the claim of corrupted scripture in those pages. I've seen claims that some people manipulate with texture, but haven't passed by a source that, straight-forward, says they're corrupted (even though many believe so, religious and non-religious personal).

Ya, it's nice. Actually, most of my research, at my University, are related to these type of mythologies and religions, specifically on tracking alteration for political and cultural reasoning. It's shocking sometimes when you fall through traces of pathetic greed that messed-up nations. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 10:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.