User talk:Timothy Usher/Archive 2

Islamism article

Timothy, Thanks for the information. I have actually totally different problems with this article. I think the articles includes serious misconceptions about Iran's government, Shia views of politics; Sunni views of politics etc. ... But let me read through it first. It may be possible that I am making a quick judgment. There is a talk given by Dr.Soroush on the topic of "Islam and the concept of secularity". There he describes how different sects of Islam have historically dealt with this concept.([1]) I suggested Anonymous editor to have a look at this lecture in the case he is interested. He later left me a comment saying:"Hi Aminz, I listened to most of his presentation. Very interesting and nice to watch. The questions he was asked could have been better ones."

If you have time, please listen to it. I am sure you will like it. --Aminz 02:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Timothy for visiting Soroush's website. You don't have to listen to his presentation. I just thought you might be interested. That presentation was mainly focused on the philosophical secularity rather than political secularity. Anyway, it is not important.

Regarding the Muhammad article, I don't know what I should do. I do not significantly prefer any of the versions over the other one. Both are approximately equally fine to me. Arabic translations just may make it a little bit ugly (except I think the Arabic form of "khatamo an nabiyin" is better to be included since I am not sure if Seal of the prophet is exact equivalent of the Arabic expression). Muhammad article seems fine to me in general.(I may leave soon but will back again soon). Have nice times, --Aminz 08:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU

Dear Timothy,

THANK YOU so much for the barnstar. Unfortuntely I can not express myself well in english, but THANK YOU. I was touched by your comment on my talk page. "God has not turned away from us. He created us from love, and by his love we are still here, and will be here when this world is gone."

Can you please promise something to me? You are a christian and I am a Muslim. If after we died there was a God, and after everything was revealed it turned out that Muhammad was a false prophet, then can you please do not forget me and ask God to have mercy upon me at the time of my misery? Please ask God not to discourage the one who has nothing except the hope that God maybe merciful to him. --Aminz 09:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

More interesting information is coming! In 5 minutes!! ;) --Aminz 08:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad

I'm afraid we're dealing with sockpuppetry regarding that new account that only does reverts on Muhammad. Pecher ^Talk 09:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about Humanist732. Pecher ^Talk 10:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You may be right about Humanist732 based on the editing pattern. Pecher ^Talk 10:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Can you please pick either this name or one of the other? Attempting to go around WP:3RR by violating WP:SOCK is against the rules. Timothy_Usher/Pecher/67.188.110.197. User247 21:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, there is a comment on Slashdot commenting on your position that was forwarded to me. [2] Interesting. User247 21:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack?

See: [3].

I know the standards of civil conduct on wikipedia aren't what they used to be, but I didn't expect anyone to take it THAT far! Comparing a wikipedia editor to a convicted murderer indeed.

Hmm, what did this person do to you to warrent a personal attack like that? Was it really that bad?

Kim Bruning 01:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The user in question, as the link you provided shows, had written to ObsidianOrder

"In the end, I am not an Islamist. I AM DEMANDING AN APOLOGY AND RETRACTION. I'm hoping you can civil about this so I don't have to escalate this issue."

I'd never encountered ObsidianOrder, nor seen him/her since, but the way this user was conducting himself, threatening other editors while screaming in caps and boldface, was unacceptable to me. I grant you that my sarcasm was unnecessary, but asking him to be specific about what he was threatening was fair and appropriate, and doesn't constitute a personal attack.Timothy Usher 01:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Khaybar

Are you going to write more about the Battle of Khaybar or you think readers will know each and everything about the Battle of Khaybar by reading that one sentence. Thank You Salman

Email

Can you enable an email so that we could communicate in this way? Pecher ^Talk 20:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Apostasy in Islam

Thank you. I think we have already made the intro look as the current dominant idea is killing the apostates. To my opinion, Pecher's version persuades the reader to consider Montazari's opinion, who is a very famous Shia jurist, as the opinion of some writer who is bothered by this law. The category of the meaning of the word "writer" includes too many people, a very very few of them are shia jurists. (Please note that I believe there are totally at most 10 present shia jurists). I don't know why but Pecher's edits often include elements that bug me. It is sometimes so hidden that I don't automatically get it. --Aminz 21:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I usually prefer not to reveal what I think about others, but I agree with most of your analysis. I also hope that we come at consensus. Thanks --Aminz 06:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The meaning of "escalation"

Hello again. Regardless of the transgressions of User:247 in terms of the prospective number of accounts used by himself and his activities outside the wiki —all of which may result in severe sanctions, possibly even on the basis of what he calls "heresay"— how do you account for your question of whether 24.7's demand for an apology, with a threat of "esclation" otherwise, involves "something like Mohammed Bouyeri" (as opposed to this threat of esclation involving going through normal Wikipedia channels)? It is a very serious thing to say. Please elaborate. TIA. El_C 22:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The comment in question is [4] was in response to capitalized boldfaced threats written to ObsidianOrder (as per the title of the editted section), as mentioned in my response to another user in the "Personal attack?" section above. The addition of the Bouyeri link to the question was knowingly sarcastic and, in retrospect, inappropriate.

But I didn't mean to compare him to Mohammed Bouyeri per se. Mainly, I wanted him to be specific about what he was saying, and to realize that he was coming across as a very angry and threatening person. He may very well have meant only normal wikipedia channels, but this wasn't at all clear to me at the time.

The way he was treating ObsidianOrder offended me, and this no doubt was evident in my tone. I'd considered that I was coming to the defense of an editor who was being bullied off the page. I should have been calmer and more civil in my response. I can't say I'm really sorry re this user, but I do apologize for breaking the spirit of WP guidelines such as WP:CIV.

Incidentally, what does TIA stands for in this context?Timothy Usher 23:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response (TIA stands for thanks in advance). Regretfuly, that the tone of this question was limited only to sarcasm was not easily discernable to me, and of course, as such, it can be viewed as a much more severe breach than mere civility (spirit & letter). At any rate, I will continue studying the case (time constraints premitting) and will contact you again if I have further querries. El_C 23:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Having re-read the policy, I have to agree with you when you say spirit and letter. I'm not certain what other wiki policy you are saying it broke (not that civility is in anyway trivial) - perhaps underlyingly NPA? - but you're more aware of the rules than I am, and as you point out, it's not a court of law.Timothy Usher 00:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not here to prosecute, I'm here to try and resolve the dispute. And I'm willing to overlook a lot if I see gestures of goodwill (from both sides) that can lead to a resolution where the concerns of both sides are addressed more-or-less to everyone's satisfaction. That is to say, I'm willing to overlook a lot more than the Arbitration Committee likely would; on that note, I reserve myself the option of defering this case to them at any time. But I'm not fully oriented with everything. I'll be back. El_C 02:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

What are they doing to me?

Ah, Timothy, that was just Lukas' joke. A funny one too. But he's referring to something more serious. I've made an enemy and he's trying to get me disciplined as an "edit-warrior" in various articles. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman/Evidence. So I may be banned from editing some Islam-related articles, because of my involvement in some Iran-related articles. Neat eh?

I spend too much on Wikipedia anyway :)

There's a verse in a poem that we recite during retreats, the Shodoka, which says that people who give you a hard time are "merciful avatars of the Buddha". Basically, they're your teachers and you should be thankful for the lesson. Of course being the hard-hearted sinners that we are, I and my Zen-doid friends sometimes refer to irritating people as "merciful avatars". Merciful avatars abound on WP, and aside from all the research that WP incites me to do, learning to deal with merciful avatars is perhaps the biggest lesson.

Thanks for caring about me. Zora 00:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, you really don't need to do it. For one thing, if you come to my defense, you're going to be attacked too. You're new here and I really don't want you driven off WP by an ugly Arbcom case. Zora 00:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

ShawnCarter

Sorry for changing your edit. Never will be repeated. --Aminz 05:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked User:ShawnCarter as an account made only for personnal attacks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Kafir

Following your expression of concern about the kafir article on User:Irishpunktom's talk page I just wanted to you drop you this link where you can search for the term "derogatory" and better understand what kafir means currently in a cultural sense.

I also wanted to comment about the message you left me in reference to my apology. I noted after my own apology, you made some yourself. This is just demonstrating one's good faith and is probably one of the best ways to foster other's confidence in you and your future edits. My principal about that is thus: When one knows they are wrong they should admit it and if in being wrong a sort of transgression has been committed against another person then one should also apologize to that other person as well. But I suspect you tend to abide by such a principal or a similar one, that's what being a good Wikipedian is all about. Netscott 00:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there can be much question that kafir is derogatory. My objection was to the conflation of its senses as an unbeliever and as a *racial* epithet.

I do try. Thanks for your encouragement.Timothy Usher 00:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Hi Timothy,

It is sad to see that people are offending you. Though it seems that some Muslims are doing that, but I just wanted to let you know that this is quite an un-islamic thing to do. Qur'an even forbids Muslims to insult the gods of other people. --Aminz 06:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words

Two of the judges have voted me guilty of edit warring, which is disconcerting, but there are apparently two judges holding out. No penalties have been proposed ... yet.

How I can be guilty of edit-warring at articles where I've never gotten a 3RR block is beyond me. But there it is.

I spent way too much time today writing a self-defense, when I should have been editing the footnotes to Honolulu: The First Hundred Years. Back to the salt mines. Zora 09:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Infidel

Pecher has blanket reverted my additions to Infidel complaining that they were "illiterate and unsourced edits"[5]. However, while they were well sourced via the external links (Maybe should be renamed External references) he may have a point in relation to my gramma' and diction, so, was wondering if you could improve on it please?! --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You know, I was doing exactly that - Pecher and I must have hit edit at the very same time, because nothing happened on my side. I've yet no opinion on the direction of the article (as my intended summary would have made clear), but I'm happy to assist with spelling and style. I'll take a look.

Thanks for stopping by.Timothy Usher 10:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

ok. I'll post it here: User talk:Irishpunktom/proposed Infidel--Irishpunktom\^talk 10:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed the tag

Thanks, I hope you feel the same way about my removing the totallydisputed tag -maybe controversial. My rationale is on the talk page. But if you disagree, that's OK too, hehehe Armon 12:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

OTO

OTO does have some significance. I'm not a big Crowley nut, I think he doesn't have a firm grasp on GOOD, but I know that that was his organization. I havent' read much into it yet, but the number 93 does not have specific significance for me.

KV 21:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah.. I have a friend who I argue good and evil with all the time. He sees it necessary to balance good and evil (being a Crowleyite) whereas I see good as the balance between two evils, one being selfishness and the other being selflessness.... for both do harm to the whole. Good is what is best for the system and God's plan (so violating free will is always evil as it violates God's plan) It's good to give a shirt to someone without any if you have 2, but if you were to say, take a bullet that kills you to keep me from getting a scratch from a bullet, that is under excessive selflessness and is evil. Balancing the needs of the self and not-self is what is good, IMO.

At least he's not the type of chaote who finds it ok to attack people magically at whim and complains that chaos magicians don't understand more than one line in general of the theory, and would disagree with the term 93 at least.

KV 22:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Socks on Christianity

It's been a problem for some time. See the page edit history. We've been through it again and again on the notice boards without much improvement. The talk page is almost unusable, crufted up like a web forum. The latest problem was/is an external site used for soliciting and coordinating single-issue reverters. The site revealed some personal information about several of us, and a few people got blocked. I think the solution is more editors. I'm happy to see you on the page.

I thought about dropping it as a waste of time, but instead I've been considering following the main pages of the major religions and trying to keep things objective. A few days ago I saw someone trying to put some very detailed critical analysis of the Qur'an on the main page of Islam, something about the influence on the Qur'an of other contemporary religious writing. It reminded me of the problems we have at Christianity. There too, there was already a page (I forget the name) that discussed the material. There's room for almost all viewpoints, but they don't all belong in the top-level article. I'm by no means an expert on religion, but they're all interesting, and they deserve the best articles we can make. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read the Christianity article. While wandering, I saw your comments there. I just dropped a comment without knowing what is going on there. Let me have another look at the talk page of the Christianity article and come back to you soon. Thanks. --Aminz 03:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to ask critics to work on the Criticism of Christianity article rather than Christianity itself. We can not, however, avoid irrelevant discussion on the talk page anyway. I think I should not have made my comment there since my comment could only have made things worst. And as you said and I agree with "Islam is much more relevant to current events, and to Middle Eastern politics, another of my interests, and again very relevant to the world."

Regarding your comment to the Biblical and/or Qur'anic laws. Many of them seem outdated. The problem is that the text itself does not say these laws will be outdated. Of course, had the text said such a thing, it would have been much misused. The problem that however remains is that if we allow ourselves to design the laws, there will be no need to take religious laws as anything more than a proposal. This will on the other hand ignore the spirit of obedience in religion. Where are the boundaries? I don't know. I believe this is an unsolvable internal problem with the religon itself. This is of course more a problem for Judaism and Islam rather than Christianity. --Aminz 04:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, I forgot to ask. I couldn't get the meaning of "The anti-text submarine is hard at work - take a look. It's not all one-way. There's a lot of irrelevant preaching in this article". Sorry for my english! "anti-text submarine"? I would be thankful if you clarify. THANK YOU! --Aminz 07:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC) 07:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, I feel I don't know enough to be able to be useful and contribute to the Christianity article. But please let me know if someone wanted to push his POV through revert war there. --Aminz 07:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Timothy, thank you! I learned some more expressions and verbs! the verb "to coin"; "to roam" :) anyway, I wish you are doing well! Take care, --Aminz 07:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

When I'm under attack, kindness is especially felt. May the good you do come back to you hundred-fold. Zora 11:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Fun at Islamism

I was about to remove the new anti-Pipes attack. You beat me to it. :P Kyaa the Catlord 21:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the similarity. I've not seen 247 lately. I almost miss him. :P I've been hanging out at some of the anime articles lately, they're my first love. But I'm still watching Islamism and trying to find time to juggle all this fun! Kyaa the Catlord 21:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I've requested Katefan and Tom's help again. This must be stopped before it gets out of hand... again. Kyaa the Catlord 22:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I feel it is fair to put a warning on the talk page on Islamism like I did, what do you think? I also asked him on his talk to stick to his word. Kyaa the Catlord 22:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: ShawnCarter. Amazing. Simply unbelievable. Kyaa the Catlord 22:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Three reverts on Aisha

Timothy, you've done your three reverts. If you do more, you'll be blocked. The anon, however, is over three and can be reported. I hopeyou know how to do that, because I'm exhausted and going to bed RIGHT NOW, before my head hits the keyboard. Zora 11:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Qur'an template

Template:Quran-usc and Template:Quranquote, though both are only rough. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The whole thing is a cut-down version of the Bible verse template, Template:Bibleverse. Basically what happens is I look at the web address, for example http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html#003.072 and replace with variables the parts that change, the variables being {{{1}}}, {{{2}}}, etc. To set it up with a range like 3:72-78, I would have to know (at least) how to ask the USC site for that. These variables can also be used to fill in the link title. There is a way to add defaults to the template, but I haven't read up on it yet. I really know very little about templates; The references I used are on my user page under "Resources." These Qur'an templates are hardly used so far, so you should be able to edit them in place without stressing the server. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we need to be able to type 3:72-78 and have the template pad the 3 to 003, the 72 to 072, and trim off the -78. I don't know how to do that, and I think the facilities for that kind of string manipulation are lacking. I'm pretty sure some kind of work-around is possible. You might try looking through a bunch of templates to see if any do something like that. Here is a list of external link templates. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Shawn carter

Tom saw your user page first. I only left a psychological analysis comment of the user on his user page. --Aminz 00:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's not me who has been insulted, but could you think about letting it go for now? Both are blocked, he says they aren't his. If the attacks stop, it might be a chance to take his word for it and move on. But, as I said, it's not happening to me; I guess it's up to you. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason you should have to put up with that stuff. I'll dig into it tomorrow morning and see what's to be done. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

9:29

I just discovered that verses 9:29-31 like Deuteronomy 13:6-18 uses the pretext of monotheistic religion as a justification. --Aminz 03:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Not my socks

Timothy, whoever shawn carter is, he is not my sockpuppet. I do not have any reason to mess with your user page and call you gay. I am Muslim, I am forbidden from doing that and accusing others of sinning unless they openly acknowledge their sins. Though it does seem very very wierd that someone out of the blue would attack you like that, so I can see why you might think it is me. But honestly, it is not me. MuslimsofUmreka 03:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Mosque FAC Comment

I have responded to your comments on the Mosque FAC; I hope I have addressed your concerns sufficiently. Feel free to comment more on issues with the article on the FAC page. joturner 07:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up; I'll take a look.

In the meantime, I'm amazed by what you've done with your user pages. How did you do all this?Timothy Usher 08:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The answer's simple. My user page says "I am editing from UTC-4". I believe the signature gives UTC... and so subtract four... that should give you the answer. joturner 08:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Kafir

I guess Sunnis historically have been more inclined not to consider people of book infidel. Shia Muslims, due to ritual purity, I guess have been more cautious. Just a guess --Aminz 09:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Muhammed

You removed my additions saying "what exactly does the reference say", do you have any idea what does the rest of the references say about prophet Muhammed? Why are you only questioning the reference when it talks good about him? why aren't you questioning the other references. All I can say is if each user keeps removing things from the article asking "what exactly the reference says" there wont be an article left for anyone to read. I advice you to think calm and collectively whether what you are doing is the correct thing, because earlier when you removed the same content you said "Hagiography as per Zora" now you are giving a totally different reason. I dont quite understand your intentions here..Is it to keep away everything good about prophet out of the article. Sorry for not assuming good faith I've lost faith with your second removal with a different reason than the first. «₪Mÿš†íc₪» 10:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you mind

Do you mind if I keep this username? If you do, i'll change it right away. But I really like this username. TimothyUsher 17:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Its okay. It might case a lot of confusion. I changed my username. Chess Master 04:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Dopplegangers

The logs show that the one who commented above was created at 22:31, 23 April 2006 (CDT), and the others were created around 01:37 - 01:44, 24 April 2006 (CDT). Is it possible that someone created it before you did? If you have the password, you should be able to change it and lock him out (assuming he's not just an unlucky guy). Even if he is just a guy with the same name, it's so similar to yours that it is likely to be confusing. He has no contribs yet, and I've blocked it while we sort things out. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Weird stuff. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Qur'an templates

Wonderful!

They are handy and pretty useful!!

                                    Greatly Appreciated!!!

--Aminz 03:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Glad you like them. Again, though, hold off on using them until we're sure that the template names will stay the same.Timothy Usher 03:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, they're good. Thanks. --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The templates look good; I think people should start using them. Pecher wants one for the Hadiths as well. Are these available on line? Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Many are, but I was having a little trouble with the USC syntax. I'll be back at it at some point today.Timothy Usher 17:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Buhari Template

Check this out..

Sahih al-Bukhari, 076:08:0429

Suggestions welcome!! «₪Mÿš†íc₪» 21:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

No problem. I fully agree. —Aiden 20:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Your Welcome

Your Welcome. I guess i'm the first chess master on this website. Lol. Its nice to know that i'm not the only Timothy Usher here, I think. Chess Master 22:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Bukhari Template

Check this out.. Sahih al-Bukhari, 076:08:422

Suggestions welcome!! «₪Mÿš†íc₪» 21:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to figure out what you wanted me to look at, but then I realized it was the template. The template doesn't work perfectly since all numbers must have three digits (I think {{Buhari|076|008|422}}, not {{Buhari|076|08|422}}) was what you were going for. If possible, it would be nice to have it fill in those leading zeros if the editor doesn't put them in. In addition, it seems like it should be volume|book|number, not book|volume|number as you currently have it. Lastly, I would be great to have it say Sahih Bukhari - Volume 8, Book 76, Number 422 instead of the current Buhari Book 076 Vol 08 Hadith 422. Lastly, unless there is a transliteration I'm unaware of, the template needs to be moved to Bukhari. Feel free to reply with a {{sofixit}} if that is what you want. joturner 21:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You're having the same problem I was having - I can't figure out how to get the right Hadith to display, only the book and volume (it always goes to the top). Not that it's not still useful, it's just that I know there's a way to call them up individually because I've seen it done. Just can't remember the syntax.

joturner, your suggestion is on the mark, but neither Tom harrison nor I could figure out how to pad the input numbers with zeros as you suggest (or eliminate zeros from the display). If you know a way, we can apply it to all four Qur'an templates (I created three more last night).

It's Bukhari, naturally.Timothy Usher 21:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Joturner's Qur'an template improvements

I took care of the number issue. I created a template called {{three digit}}. Look at the template talk for how to use it, but it's quite simple. Just do {{three digit|number}}. joturner 00:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, ignore the error on the template page. The template is correct. joturner 00:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a question on how to use the template? It would be preferably to use {{three digit}} in the Qur'an and Bukhari templates, so someone using those templates on another page won't have to deal with {{three digit}}. joturner 01:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, what do you think of my idea to drop "Qur'an" from the link display?Timothy Usher 01:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes; dropping it would be a good idea. If you want, you (or I) just copy the code from {{three digit}} to the other templates. Feel free to use {{sofixit}} if you so desire. joturner 01:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Shall do, making the -num variants defunct.Timothy Usher 01:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by that. What are you doing? Copying the code from {{three digit}}? joturner 01:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You can look at "what links here" (located on the left side of every page under toolbox) on the template page. For the Qur'an-usc template, this is the what links here page. Nothing includes that template as you can see. joturner 01:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Help! After a few careless errors, this is what I did, and it's still not working correctly:[6]

You can see what's happening - it's looking for the first set of close brackets, rather than moving inward from both sides.Timothy Usher 01:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The template works - ^{[Quran 3:21]}. I think the if statements are a bit troublesome although they are indeed implemented correctly (at least I thought they were). Perhaps you could put a message on the template talk page stating that there really is no error contrary to what the template page says. joturner 01:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Al-Ahbash

I see your point but I have not lost my hope yet. The good thing about this page is that it is short. There has been some agreement so far though. That we will have a "criticism of Ahbash" section and a response section. There is only one sentence in the intro that people do not agree on: The sentence "It is highly controversial within Islamism for its religious stance (anti-Salafi, and with Sufi and other beliefs seen as heretical) and its political alliances (pro-Syria and conciliatory toward the West)." Let's see what happens. --Aminz 03:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Islam

Dear Timothy, as Hinduism is a featured article, I took that as a model to construct Islam's leading paragraph. It has certain information that Islam's paragraph does not, adherents, state religions, etc., that I wish to include. Thank you. BhaiSaab 04:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well how about you improve the sentence structure in my edit as you see fit, instead of reverting to a past version? That way all the information is conserved. Thanks. BhaiSaab 04:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The current intro revision seems good. Perhaps I'll think of more ways to improve and expand upon it soon. I look forward to working with you. BhaiSaab 05:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"Clash of the editors"

Rofl, thanks for the message, but the offensive paragraph by the anon seems to have vanished so I'm happy. However, I've been in this situation myself several times and the best thing is to do what you did - leave a message. Thanks again. :) Green Giant 04:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Islam statement

Well, that is more or less what Hall directly states :)

KV 05:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Template

Good job! Thanks! --Aminz 08:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you please let me know who were involved in making the template? You, jounter, Mystic, Tom. Anybody else? --Aminz 08:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You've done a fine job; you really took that and ran with it. Well done! I deleted a couple of the defunct one's, and I'll get to the Bukhari one later. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's Acts 11 on Wikisource. (s:Wikisource:Religious texts looks interesting too. I'll have to look through there some time.) I assume you've seen Template:Bibleverse-nb. Christian Classics Ethereal Library has great content, but their web interface is quirky. Beyond that, there are half a dozen websites that are good. I just use Google and pick whichever meets my need at the time - parallel translations, commentary, foreign languages, etc. I think a sub cat for scripture templates would be a good idea. I wonder if there is anything similar for non-religous texts. Are people citing lines from Shakespere or anything? If so, or if they might want to do that in the future, the category could be named broadly enough to include that use as well. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad

I just mentioned the similarity of my name and "Al-Amin" as a joke("joke" is not what I mean; I don't know the true word for that). Timothy, my POV is that the title Al-Amin should be included there. --Aminz 08:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the word "helpful" and "to his neighbors" from the article. The reference for other claims is provided. How is this? --Aminz 09:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Timothy, do you still disagree with my last edit? --Aminz 09:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What about the references? Were they sufficient? thx. --Aminz 09:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

So, I guess you agree there is no factual problem with my edit. I'll find other stories in which Muhammad's title has more significant(tomorrow). --Aminz 10:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Here you are:

The Rejection

Thus, Mohammad (pbuh) began to spread the word of Allah, first to his immediate family and then to his close friends and relations. Then God commanded Mohammad (pbuh) to preach outside of his family, and to the people of Makkah. One day Mohammad (pbuh) climbed a small hill in the vicinity of the Ka'bah, and asked the people in the surrounding areas if they would believe him if he told them that an enemy was on the other side of the hill, ready to attack them. The people said to Mohammad (pbuh), "you are Al-Amin, The Trustworthy, of course we will believe you". So, Mohammad (pbuh) told them that the enemy was the pagan religion that they believed in, and the only way to escape was to turn to Allah for guidance and salvation [Islam 11]. He told them to proclaim that there is only One God. The people were horrified; they thought that Mohammad was possessed or crazy, and they rejected his message. However, the word of God began to slowly spread across Makkah, and Mohammad (pbuh) gained more followers. In the following years Mohammad (pbuh) and the Muslims would face tremendous hardship and oppression. These event eventually led to the Migration to Madinah.

What is significant about the Revelation, the Message of God, is that it was an act for which the Prophet (pbuh) was ready. Meaning, that he had already forsaken the beliefs of his people and his culture. Mohammad (pbuh) had proved himself ready for prophethood through his pious actions and behavior. Among his people he had already earned the name Al-Amin, The Trustworthy. Moreover, Mohammad (pbuh) was a mature man, one who had lived the majority of his life, and could devote the next twenty-three years of that life to the service of God. [top]

source:

www.grad.cgu.edu/~dadabhoa/webpage/revelation.htm

Google cash: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:91SpZS4D2e0J:www.grad.cgu.edu/~dadabhoa/webpage/revelation.htm+muhammad+mountain+al-amin&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2

--Aminz 10:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

There are more stories (or maybe legends according to you), but I believe that the title Al-Amin itself is not a legend. In any case, it is Muslim POV. --Aminz 10:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey Timothy,

Here is a link that shows that al-amin was one of the most famous titles given to Muhammad (The top three according to this website are - Al-Mustafa, Al-Amin, Ar-Rasool):

http://www.shia.org/ProphetMuhammad.html

Also, please have a look at the following book. It shows the importance of this title:

http://islamicbookstore.com/b3756.html

Here is another story taken from another website:

9. Promises and Pacts Muhammad (S) always kept his word. The Makkans used to call him al-Amin (the trustworthy) even before he received the Wahy (revelation). When Negus, the Christian ruler of Ethiopia, was interrogating the Muslims who had migrated to Ethiopia about Muhammad's (S) character, one of his questions was, "Does your Messenger keep his word?" The answer was, "Yes; always!" Whether it was the "Covenant of Madinah" or the "treaty of Hudaybiyah" all pacts were honored scrupulously.

As I said, there are lots of stories relating to the title "Al-Amin". Thanks, --Aminz 21:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought I have already showed that he was called Al-Amin before age of 40. I wrote the above to prove the importance of the title to Muslims. You can find the statement that Muhammad was given this title before claim of prophethood is in the USC links or somewhere else in the interent. Timothy, I think mentioning that Muhammad was given the title Al-Amin should be there because it appears in almost all Muslims bio's of Muhammad, I believe. Please take it easy. I swear it is Muslim POV. --Aminz 02:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

More Hadith Templates

• Template:Abudawud - {{Abudawud|1|15}}
• Template:Muslim - {{Muslim|1|4}}
• Template:Muslim-usc - {{Muslim-usc|1|4}}
• Template:Bukhari - {{Bukhari|76|8|422}}

I created all these templates. If you want a shorter version of the Bukhari template use Template:Bukhari-usc created by Timothy. If there are issues please feel free to fix them and remember to put a note on talk page thanks «₪Mÿš†íc₪» 09:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Muwatta

Any luck with the Muwatta template? Its a bit tricky isn't it? «₪Mÿš†íc₪» 12:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR

You have reached 3RR on Qur'an article. But please continue discussion on the talk page. I have not done any revert so far. --Aminz 04:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh! Sorry, I made a mistake! You are not on 3RR.

As to the barnstar, I think he is a good quality controller. I have seen some of his edits and have liked them (e.g. on "Isa" article and so on). Moreover,

As to the "freezing McKhan's anti-Habashi screed": Well, see, at that time the talk page was free from any constructive discussion. I know you are not happy with what is currently going on the talk page but I believe we have a better conversation now and will get into consensus. Locking the article at least helped people engage more in discussion. Moreover, I thought the table not that POV in the first brief look. I consider myself guilty if anyone is.

"For freezing MOU's sock-puppet version of Islamism": I don't know anything about this. --Aminz 05:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Timothy, I apologize if I didn't use the proper language. I was a little bit upset. Sorry! I have always believed you are working in good faith and you just want to improve the quality of the articles. --Aminz 09:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

How is my new suggestion:

My suggestion: Having "and a confirmation of previous God's revelation to mankind as revealed to Muhammad" rather than "and the culmination of God's revelation to mankind as revealed to Muhammad,". This is Qur'anic POV rather than Muslim POV. How is this? We may compromise over the rest. It just takes time. --Aminz 09:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Good Luck! --Aminz 09:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You know what! It is funny. My edit conflicted with yours and I was adding totally disputed tag to the article. :D --Aminz 09:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Qur'an

IMO, the differences are not really significant. We say that these are Muslims who believe in it, so the entire sentence is by definition POV. Pecher ^Talk 08:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see your point. Pecher ^Talk 08:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Persian Jews

I don't see your name on the discussion page there, why are you reverting and removing paragraphs that come with sources? --ManiF 23:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Look again.Timothy Usher 23:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Timothy. Why exactly did you revert the info at Persian Jews? It was backed up with references. —Khoikhoi 23:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Persian Jews.Timothy Usher 23:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stop asking stupid questions

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Please stop questioning other editors religious views on Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments/Image-Display, remove your latest comment and try to follow the Wikipedia:Wikiquette guideline. Thanks! Raphael1 23:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a diff?Timothy Usher 23:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure Raphael1 23:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack, nor is it a comment on a contributor. Thus, your warning template is highly inappropriate.Timothy Usher 23:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is a personal attack. You are mocking Lionking by asking him that stupid question. Raphael1 23:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I can see why you might have chosen this interpretation, especially in light of the highly contentious atmosphere of the page, but that was not my intent. Rather, I'd hoped to give him cause for thought - it is irrational, I submit, to feel personally insulted by the treatment of a long-dead figure whom one somehow loves with all one's heart, yet has never met. Especially so in light of Islamic doctrine which holds that Muhammad is just a mortal man, and not worthy of worship. Nor is it generally held that Muhammad is present in such a way that we might personally know him (as opposed to Christian views of Jesus).

I hope I've addressed this to your satisfaction.Timothy Usher 23:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Would you mock someone, who loves Jesus too? There's nothing rational about love, because love is an emotion. Please go back to the talk page, remove your question and talk to Lionking as you would talk with a Christian who loves Jesus. Raphael1 00:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, but that doesn't mean that reason doesn't have a place here as well. His preaching to other editors was itself, as Kyaa the Catlord noted, a violation of wikipedia policy - it's not appropriate that he use the talk page to call others to embrace Islam.Timothy Usher 00:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

He never preached or called others to embrace Islam. He spoke about his love to Mohammed and that he felt hurt. This one quote from the Qur'an won't change that. We don't have to discuss that any further, instead please change your initial response to Lionking. Raphael1 00:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Allah = God

You may find these arguments useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Depictions_of_Muhammad#God_.3D_Allah

The Question was that "Is Allah=Yahweh?"

Thanks, Amin.

Timothy Usher, I believe you to be an honorable editor and so it is with concern that I inform you that despite the barnstars that User:Aminz has accorded you I would sooner recommend that you refrain from working with him due to his demonstration of lack of good faith over the Allah/God issue. I am now inclined to think that User:Aminz is less than honorable. Netscott 10:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

That is a seperate issue to what I am discussing right here. User:Aminz has made efforts on my talk page trying to belittle his less than honorable editing and refuses to fully admit that what he did was wrong. If you believe that I'm wrong in my estimation of User:Aminz's character then perhaps you might want to explain to him (relative to the messages I've left on his talk page) so that he might better understand and attempt to restore his honor. Netscott 10:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I am only responsible to God. I BELIEVE I did wrong once and confess it. That's it. If I want to restore any honor, it is only through repenting to God. --Aminz 10:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Well if you are editing on Wikipedia with the belief that you are only responsible to God then you should definitely step away from the project. Wikipedia is about being responsible to verifiability and factual information and does not need editing that deviates from this. Wikipedia also needs honorable editors who are willing to fully admit their bad faith ways and return to demonstrating good-faith. Netscott 10:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Being responsible to God does not contradict being responsible to verifiability and factual information. "Wikipedia also needs honorable editors who are willing to fully admit their bad faith ways and return to demonstrating good-faith." MAY apply to you as well. --Aminz 10:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I can only surmise that you are an individual whose religious convictions cloud their ability for logical well developed thought. If this is not the case then you absolutely know that I did not act in bad faith in reverting your edits but you are not able to admit it because of a desire to save face. Netscott 10:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

That's your POV. I believe I am pretty good in logical as well as developed thoughts (fyi: I have the gold medal from the international mathematical olympiad). I have always tried to be honest with myself and still believe I am. --Aminz 10:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Aminz, so you do. Just verified. Nevertheless, don't let emotion make a liar of you. Meanwhile, Netscott, will you let up a little? I'll take a closer look soon.Timothy Usher 10:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• I demonstrated to you why my edits were not bad faith, but you fail to accept and try to belittle your own negative actions. Well, I'm beginning to get the impression that I'm wasting my time... bit of a pity really.... Netscott 10:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• I accepted my breaking of compromise was worst than yours(okay, You think you haven't done anything wrong) Fine, You have your own POV and I have mine. I agree that we are both wasting our time here. Peace and Goodnight. --Aminz 10:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Mozart's Requiem Mass

No, I haven't even heard about it before but I will definitely listen to it. Thanks. Good night--Aminz 10:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Help at Husayn ibn Ali

Salman, a sweet but unsophisticated 18-year-old Shi'a, is sure that Husayn wasn't killed, he was martyred. We tell him that the language is POV and should not be used, but he insists. Could you come give some support at the page? If you look at Salman's talk page, you'll see it is full of pleas to him to let WP use neutral language, but he is fiercely insistent on the martyrdom. I don't know how many reversions and how many remonstrances it is going to take, but i'm hoping that eventually he will learn to live and let live. Zora 22:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Imam Hussain (AS) ibn Ali (AS) ibn Abi Talib (AS)

Thanks for telling me man, I didn’t know anything about that. Well I guess I will have to fix the family structure of Imam Hussain ibn Abi Talib’s (AS) page tomorrow. Thanks You Salman

Sorry about Jesus in Islam

I've spent all afternoon working on Aisha. I'm tired. The age at marriage section is completely rewritten. Take a look. Zora 03:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Image vandalism on Muhammad

It should not be a bot since the vandalism times are 6:23 and 9:46. I believe robots should work on more specific times(like 6:00, 9:00 etc). --Aminz 06:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Re:

Yeah, I was wondering how come you left this as it was. :D You are always here, editing wikipedia. How many edits do you do per day? --Aminz 08:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

1286 edits (http://tools.wikimedia.de/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Timothy%20Usher&dbname=enwiki ) Hmmm, you are reaching me! :) --Aminz 08:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

My edits/page is 10.84 and yours is 8.69 ;) and Zora's is 6.17 :) --Aminz 08:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Timothy,

I agree with you that having two words for the same thing will only increase confusion and more importantly increases the chance of misusing(like the example of "anointed" and "christ" according to gary miller). But I just feel it is better to see what other editors think as well. Maybe it would be better to discuss it in more details first. But I have no personal objection with these changes. --Aminz 09:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)