User talk:212.165.146.59

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Hullo, anonymous editor. I see that you're making extensive edits to various Islam-related articles, usually, it seems to me, in the direction of a Shi'a POV (point of view). It would be nice if you would take a username and discuss your edits in the talk pages. A lot of the articles you've been editing have long histories, and many editors involved. In such cases, it often works better to work for consensus among the editors. I'm going to be reversing some of your changes, which seem to me to be arguable. But I could be wrong too. That's why it's important to discuss matters, and particularily important when it comes to matters on which the Sunni and Shi'a hold opposite views. Wikipedia tries to be NPOV, neutral point of view, and that means being fair to Sunni and Shi'a alike. Zora 23:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Anon editor, please STOP defacing Islam-related articles with contentious Shi'a edits. You are not discussing them with other editors, you are not justifying them, you are not supporting them with any sources, you are just defaming people whom the Shi'a dislike. Your actions reflect no credit on the Shi'a, and they are completely useless, because they will be deleted as soon as they are noticed. Please learn something about WP:Wikiquette. If you continue as you have done, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Zora 08:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] I have reverted your edits

Again you defaced the articles for the first three caliphs with unsourced denunciations. They have been removed. This does not reflect credit on the Shi'a faith. If Shi'ism is all about hatred and dwelling on 1300 year old injustices, then there's not much to it. I can't find it now, but there's a link to an essay on one of the Shi'a pages, an essay by an ayatollah who says that while Shi'a believe that an injustice was done, there's no need to hate and defame Abu Bakr and Umar, and that those who do so are ignorant. Show us that Shi'ism means a concern for compassion and kindness too. Zora 09:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry that what I am contributing is taken as being negative and insulting.However,the Sunnis are well aware of them and believe them to be true. It is documented in their six holy books of hadith which they consider to be true and revere them after Koran. If you find the material to be insulting and shocking, you are right because it is. If you don't want your readers to be introduced to the Sunni pov (point of view) then I wont write in the future but if you want me to be supportive with sources, I could do that.

It is NOT a Sunni POV, and your claim that the material is found in one of the six collections is just a claim, absent cites. Furthermore, you don't seem to be distinguishing between hadith that are considered sahih and those that are da'if. Look, I have no particular love for the Sunni version of Islam -- I'm not even a Muslim. I'm quite willing to believe that the first three caliphs were fallible human beings rather than saints. But I find no support for your malice-soaked views in the various secular, academic works on early Islamic history I've read. These have been written by people with NO axe to grind. Patricia Crone, Fred Donner, and Wilferd Madelung don't credit such accusations. Do some reading outside Shi'a polemic sources, please. Zora 19:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dont advertise

Your change to the page Pakistan was determined to be unhelpful, and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. Thanks. Wisesabre 18:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Please Stop advertising here. Wisesabre 19:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MSN Messenger

Your edits have now been reverted twice in the MSN Messenger article. Please take all testing to the Sandbox. Thanks. --Thorpe | talk 19:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- GraemeL (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. -- GraemeL (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] February 5, 2006

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Hadiqa Kiyani, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ~ PseudoSudo 19:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. RexNL 19:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text, deliberate misinformation, and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. RexNL 19:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2/1/2/User_talk%7E212.165.146.59.html"