User talk:Grandia01
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] re: From grandia01
hi, can you please prove to me how the st. barnabas bible is a forgery??or is it just plain easy to say something like this from you?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grandia01 (talk • contribs).
- From Gospel of Barnabas: "The Gospel is considered by the majority of academics (including Christians and some Muslims) to be late, pseudepigraphical and a pious fraud; however, some academics suggest that it may contain some remnants of an earlier apocryphal work edited to conform to Islam." I'm not sure that language could be any stronger.
- Second, please avoid personal attacks (Wikipedia:No personal attacks) and conform to the 3RR rule (WP:3RR). Thanks. -Patstuart 10:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Personal attacks
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. -Patstuart 10:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] re: in reply to your "proof"
1)no muslim scholar denied the authenticity of the gospel of st. barnabas. 2)just because "some" scholar denied it doesn't mean that what he/she said is 100% right because you still didn't provide any logical stand-alone proof.for example:just because bush said that iraq had wmd's,does that mean that iraq really had wmd's?? 3)who are and what are the histories of these "scholars" that you mentioned??not a single name is given... thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grandia01 (talk • contribs).
- First off, please understand, I am not trying to make an enemy out of you. I am trying to explain what I wrote. It is now twice that you have personally attacked me, and more times than that that you have simply been rude. I would appreciate if we could keep this discussion on civil grounds.
- To explain, I actually took that quote right from Gospel of Barnabas on Wikipedia. That was not my own quote. Someone else wrote it. Secondly, when I called it a quackery in the edit summary, I was mimicking something that someone else had written earlier. So I am certainly not alonen in my position. If something is controversial, it is standard procedure that it is discussed on the talk page before it is added. This happens often; it happened with one of my edits earlier today. Please respect this. Thank you for your patience. -Patstuart 10:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- Also, I believe that you are slightly mistaken in your facts. You have stated "no muslim scholar denied the authenticity of the gospel of st. barnabas." This is a blanket statement, and I find that highly doubtful. http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/gbar/index.htm, a non-partisan site, describes the text as solely adopted by Muslims, and completely rejected by western scholarship. Thus, it is not "some scholar" who says it's wrong. If anything, it is most of any scholar who says it wrong, with some notable exceptions in the Muslim world. -Patstuart 10:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
If you wish to have a discussion on the talk page, I am certainly prepared to back up my statements with reliable sources.
i ask god to show all of us the right path. - that is my prayer every day. Let us, then, do our part, and pray to listen, rather than speak to be heard (I speak as much for myself as for you). God bless. -Patstuart 10:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ahmedenijad comment
Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. -Patstuart 10:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Dear Ahmedenijad, thank you for your advice.i guess i have to learn how to hold my temper.ramadhan mubarak!! :)) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grandia01 (talk • contribs) .
[edit] Signing talk-page messages
As a courtesy for other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your talk page and user talk page posts. To do so simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments and your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added along with a timestamp. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion).For further info see the talk page guidelines. Thank you. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 14:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ozonation
We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Ozonation, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.pure-aqua.com/ozonation.htm, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), you can comment to that effect on Talk:Ozonation. Then you should do one of the following:
-
- Make a note on the original website that re-use is permitted under the GFDL and state at Talk:Ozonation where we can find that note; or
- Send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Ozonation.
It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! FreplySpang 07:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] re Image:Seldon1.jpg
Why is this image not in the public domain? It looks plenty old enough. But as on your upload you indicated that it was not free, I've deleted it. Herostratus 17:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Idea generation tools
This article has been nominated for deletion (or has already been deleted). Don't be discouraged! Many of us have had articles deleted, especially early in our wikicareers. Deletion is not a reflection on your editing but simply the application of our standard rules, particularly WP:NOTABILITY (and WP:BIO for persons, WP:WEB for websites, WP:CORP for companies, WP:MUSIC for bands, and so forth.) Looking forward to your future contributions, Herostratus 05:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of your edits from Muhammad
The Gospel of Barnabas is widely considered a forgery. No sources you referenced for commentary on the Didache make mention of Islam or Mohommad. Please stop adding them to the Muhammad article. Frotz661 07:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
It should by now be obvious to you that this addition is not accepted by the editors to this article, and will be removed on sight. If you continue with this behavior, you will at some point assuredly be blocked. Until then, you are merely wasting everyone's time, including yours.Proabivouac 21:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] License tagging for Image:Islambouli iran.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Islambouli iran.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] License tagging for Image:Bahrain king.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Bahrain king.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Baldwin II of Jerusalem
It appears that your addition is a cut-and-paste off the Columbia Encyclopedia online here. We are not allowed to copy in that fashion, it's considered a copyright violation. Columbia Enc. would need to give explicit permission. Wjhonson 18:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment on my Talk page. In general it is fine to quote and cite the source, providing your quote does not make up the majority of the article, and provided your quote does not replicate the entire underlying source. Those are the areas where we get into hot water. So you could quote and cite one sentence say from the Columbia Enc. but if you quote the entire entry that's a no-no. Also if our entire article is simply one big quote, that's a no-no. The best articles have a mixture of direct and indirect quotes, plus summations of other sources all mixed together. See for example Krishnamurti which happens to have a lot of quotes and citations. But again, it has summations. It pulls together many sources into one article. Wjhonson 18:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disruption on Muhammad
Grandia01, your repeated restoration of tendentious material without discussion and in total contempt of consensus has reached the level of disruption.[1], [2], [3] Please desist from this unacceptably dysfunctional approach to editting Wikipedia.Proabivouac 05:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Foretelling of Muhammad in the Bible?
Hello Grandia01 thanks for your polite note. The primary reason is that the material you're entering is considered to be somewhat of a fringe theory on the Muhammad article. This type of material can generally be removed per the undue weight clause of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. What I would recommend you do is consider creating an article about that idea and write it with well sourced attributable citations. The better sourced the material is (with scholarly sources, etc.) the more likely that it will remain on Wikipedia. (→Netscott) 06:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's certainly novel. I've never seen anything like it before. Any source, if quoted, that refers to the Didache as a Gospel seems a bit suspicious. Perhaps Grandia you could quote and cite the complete section to Talk first so we can see what it is. Wjhonson 07:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Noted, please see the Talk page of Muhammad where I've opened a new discussion on whether the Gospel of Barnabas should not be mentioned in the article somewhere. Wjhonson 07:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Grandia01, sorry you caught me as I'm right in the middle of working on a template. I'm going to be a bit busy with that and then I will go to sleep... so I won't be particpating in that discussion for now. If it is still active later on today I will join in. See you. (→Netscott) 08:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Three revert violations
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Muhammad. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -- Avi 07:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I see no evidence of Grandia engaging in 3RR violations. Avi, please don't be heavy handed when there is no need for it. Thank you. Wjhonson 07:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Muhammad
Hi Grandia01,
We need secondary sources per WP:RS to add that. I remember I have read that somewhere but don't rememeber where. I'll add it as soon as I find it. Cheers, --Aminz 21:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Barnabas
Grandia01, I'm reading the thread right now. I'm not at all familiar with the Barnabas story so I need to familiarize myself with it a bit more before I comment but at this point I wouldn't be too inclined to include it. Let me read up on it. (→Netscott) 08:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Another editor suggested we move some of the more contentious references to Muhammed into a new article. I would not be opposed to that. As far as the Gospel of Barnabas is concerned I'm a bit ambivalent. I can see the argument that you propose, but I can also see the argument, that from the point-of-view of the Muhammad article, it's a bit tangential. It's a very late work, or at least first attested in a late context. It also has elements that tend to speak perhaps toward a source among non-Trinitarian Christians instead of Muslims. The specific ways in which it speaks of Muhammad might be considered blasphemous by Muslims or heretical perhaps. I think most of this is discussed on the G.O.B. page, perhaps we should leave it there. Wjhonson 23:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding edits to Knights Templar
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Grandia01! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \burbandictionary\.com\/, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 07:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
