User talk:Itaqallah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Itaqallah.
This is the User talk page for Itaqallah, where you can send messages and comments to Itaqallah.

Contents
Archive
Archive

[edit] Dear Itaqallah

Real nice of you to point to Wikipedia rules and all, but your reverts and critique on my edits in Battle of Mu'tah make no sense at all. The reason I changed numbers here in the Battlebox is because anyone can see "100,000 vs 3,000 makes 20,000 vs 15 casualties" is ridiculous. It would take a muslim like you that obviously has a certain POV to revert such numbers, sadly justifying my comment. You were right to see my edits in the text as original research but the numbers in the right are just too stupid to remain there. It's like telling me to prove 1+1≠3 without original research, because its just so obviously wrong. Therefore changing the casualties from 15 vs "20,000" to "Unknown, but likely far lower than 20,000" is not original research, but basic relativating.

Wiki1609 22:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Criticism_of_Islam#A_.22Praise_of_Islam.22_article

Please express your view on this, as you seem to be one of the Muslim people editing Criticism of Islam.Coldbud 01:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mahdi Article

Itaqallah, I'd made some changes to the Mahdi article (As well as suggested merging several Mahdi-related articles) and I was told that you would be helpful in a current disagreement regarding changes to the Mahdi article. I believe the sourcing and claims to be poor, and that it would be misleading to a casual user of Wikipedia. Please let me know your thoughts on the matter. Elijahmeeks 18:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please clarify allegation of misquotation

Please clarify the allegation of misquotation you made on me here. How did I misquote you? --Matt57 20:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

you misquoted me in a derogatory manner. please review what you attributed to me. ITAQALLAH 23:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
You made the claim that I misquoted you. It is you who must provide the proof. --Matt57 00:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
i said "i wouldn't regard my untranslated Qur'anic extract as campaigning", and you claim i said "oh, but its a little untranslated Quranic verse." please re-read what i wrote above. ITAQALLAH 00:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Its the same thing. You minimized your own verse while you complained about a link ProtectWomen used on her own page. What is your opinion of my own user page? You are ok with anyone having a Quranic verse or hadith on their user page, correct? --Matt57 01:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
it's not the same thing: you misquoted me in a highly inappropriate manner. why is my opinion about your user page relevant? i do take issue with users engaging in WP:POINT violations. i think we've had this discussion before. ITAQALLAH 01:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It was not inappropriate. Arrow740 01:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Itaq yea, it wasnt inappropriate. Let me know if you have a better quotation I can use for my user page. There is no POINT violations here, alright. Do what you wanna do. Let me know and we'll get all verses deleted from all user pages, included the one on yours so we can all stop soapboaxing etc. --Matt57 03:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
either you don't believe that posting such on user pages is policy violation, in which case you are simply wikilawyering and interrogating me on my talk page; or you do believe it is a policy violation, in which case you have scored an own goal in your own zeal and violated (and continue to violate) WP:POINT. i don't think there's anything else to say here, have a nice day. ITAQALLAH 15:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Anti-Islam sentiment

Yes it is, on that article. Read my comments on the categories discussion page where I have explained why. -- Karl Meier 12:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That the category survived an AfD doesn't mean that it is neutral on the article we are discussing, or that we have to include it. It is not up to us to make any judgments about if their criticism of Islam is somehow "legitimate", and making the claim that their criticism is based more on feelings rather than on reason by including that category is of course not neutral. -- Karl Meier 05:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion of sockpuppet contribs...

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi there Itaqallah, i saw your re-reversion of Matt57's revert. Just so you know my thoughts on this, i reverted it simply because it was by a blocked user (ie, as a sock). Generally, i have no problems with a sock's edit being re-reverted by a legitimate user if the sock's edits were legitimate (I've actually reverted and reinstated myself once before - and today, i suggested others do it in an edit summary). If the edits were good, i don't think they should subsequently be forever removed from wikipedia simply cos a sock of a banned user did it. But i do think it is important to make the initial removal. I'm just letting you know my thoughts, and not trying to direct you in any way. You've no doubt seen I am in disagreement with Matt57 on this initial revert of socks, but I have not attempted to re-revert his reinstatement of edits he thinks are good. It's certainly an interesting issue. kind regards Merbabu 17:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

yeah, i see what you mean. it seems to be standard practice on Wikipedia to revert contributions, including those who restore the contributions of sockpuppets. but anyway, i am not so concerned that i will revert further. regards, ITAQALLAH 18:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Also please dont delete talk content from your pages for current discussions. --Matt57 22:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
i have removed the trolling and bogus warnings from my talk page. my patience of this harrassment is wearing thin. ITAQALLAH 22:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
You removed completely legitimate discussion of your edits. Arrow740 22:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
stomping around on my talk page, as was done here, is trolling. he should consult the links at the top of this page. ITAQALLAH 22:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
It is not stomping. I believe falsely accusing others of being a troll is trolling itself. Can you please now respond to my query below and tell me why DavidYork's edits were not good in the cases I linked below? --Matt57 22:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
David was banned and shouldn't have edited wikipedia in the first place.--Aminz 22:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
ItaqAllah, please dont delete my comments repeatedly and dont accuse me of harrassment. An admin has confirmed that "If it's an unquestionably good edit, then I would say it shouldn't be reverted". I have asked you to justify your reverts ([1],[2]) of valid edits from DavidYork. In short you should explain why DavidYork's edits which you reverted in those cases were not "good edits". You should know that if you continue to remove valid edits, you may be blocked from Wikipedia. --Matt57 22:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
David was banned and shouldn't have edited wikipedia. Comments made on user talk pages could be removed when they are read(please see [3]). --Aminz 22:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
As I have mentioned, an admin said that valid edits do not need to be reverted, no matter who made them (banned users or sock puppets). --Matt57 22:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
That admin said: "I'm talking specifically about reverting edits made before and after a block. If the user is evading their block, that's a whole 'nother issue...That's more of a grey area. I would personally agree with you, that each edit should be weighed on its merits, but it's certainly not something that I can use the word "absolutely" about (like I did above), nor say that it's mandated by policy."
Please do not misrepresent other user's comments. --Aminz 22:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
And Itaqallah, you have all the rights to remove Matt's comments from your talk page after you've read them. --Aminz 22:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Aminz, please do not misquote and misrepresent the admins. The admin has said: "If it's an unquestionably good edit, then I would say it shouldn't be reverted."ItaqAllah violated Wikipedia policies by failing to ackowledge wrong reverts and removing good edits. --Matt57 22:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
It is his personal view: "I can use the word "absolutely" about (like I did above), nor say that it's mandated by policy." - This comment of yours was thus improper:"You should know that if you continue to remove valid edits, you may be blocked from Wikipedia." --Aminz 23:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Do I need to requote the admin again for you? He has SAID that valid edits should NOT be reverted. ItaqAllah's and now your job as well, is to explain how the 2 edits he reverted were not good edits. --Matt57 23:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
people will get blocked for violating policies not for personal disagreements. --Aminz 23:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Whoa. Didn't know I was wading into a hornet's nest. I'll have to review this before I can say anything further, but needless to say, my opinion does not policy make. I'm just one of 1000+ admins, and frankly, our opinions aren't worth more or less than anyone else's. I will say that on first blush, that's a pretty big change for a blocked user to make, and I would have reverted it too, then asked for discussion on the talk page to see if it was a valid edit. Small, helpful edits, I don't have a problem with. Changing lots of content or media without discussion or consensus (that I could see), isn't really good for any user to do, and definitely not for blocked users evading their blocks. I was speaking in generalities since I didn't know the specifics. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Bbatsell, thanks for coming here, I hope this is resolved soon. This is really a small issue, I'm sorry you are spending time on this as you are an admin. What I have been saying is and what I believe you also agreed to: An edit should not be reverted solely because it was made by a sock puppet. It may be a good edit and if it is, it should not be reverted. If it is reverted then the reason should be based on the edit itself. Feel free to make a judgement and close this discussion. Again I apologize that you had to spend time on this small issue. --Matt57 23:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
This remarkably unproductive discussion appears to be a proxy for disputes on Islam-related articles. DavidYork71 was rightly blocked, and I see nothing especially compelling about these sockpuppet edits. Please address real underlying concerns directly and in the relevant places. Also, note that Itaqallah's username has only one capital letter.Proabivouac 23:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/t/a/User_talk%7EItaqallah_01d9.html"