User talk:82.134.103.100

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:

  • The use of a username of your choice
  • The ability to view all your contributions via a "My contributions" link
  • Your own user page
  • Your own talk page which, if you choose, also allows users to send you messages without knowing your e-mail address
  • The use of your own personal watchlist to which you can add articles that interest you
  • The ability to rename pages
  • The ability to upload images
  • The ability to customize the appearance and behavior of the website
  • The eligibility to become an administrator
  • The right to be heard in votes and elections
  • Your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. We hope you enjoy your time here on Wikipedia as a Wikipedian! Thanks, Alphax τεχ 05:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Islam is not a political ideology any more than other religions are. Islamism is a political ideology; the two are not the same.--Pharos 04:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Islam

Hi, I see you've been making controversial edits at Islam. This is a page that has seen some upheaval recently because of bad-faith editing, and as a result, I'd appreciate it if you would discuss on the talk page any edit likely to be controversial before inserting it into the article. If you do insert something and it's reverted quickly by an established editor, please don't insert it again without discussion. If the reverting continues, you may be blocked for disruption without further warning. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 18:45, August 25, 2005 (UTC)


My comment:

The current version is not even bad-faith but pure lie.

Something is not a religion only because some people say it's a religion. A religion is only a belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices, values, and institutions associated with such belief. There is no room for political ideologi in a religion. Therefore there must be no rules which tell people to punnish other people for not following any kind of rules. A system which include pnnishment from humans and not only from a God is not a religion but also a political system. Only Islam has such rules (Sharia-law). This is not the same as Islamism. The fact that Quran has political laws does not automatically mean that all Muslims must agree to *implement* it at a specified time and place like islamists do. The text in Quran is same degree political no matter how many or few Islamists there is.

It's an abious lie that Islam is no more political ideology than other religions. As for Chrsitianity (based on Jesus) there is not a single line in new testament which tell a human to punnish another human for not following some law defined in the same book. In buddhism there is not a single such law either.

There are poeple who want to make racism a religion. They mix classic political racist idology (nazism etc..) with some random God belief, and say "now it's a religion". But it't not. Same with Islam. It's a religion and political system integrated.

Prove I'm wrong.

If you want to contribute and add something that is disputed, especially after the fact that many editors have reverted your edits, than pls refer to the talk page of the article. Svest 02:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


I don't care how many disagree. My opinion (and a lot others) is that Islam is not only a religion but also a political system. Unless you can prove I'm wrong you have no right to delete my comments based on this rule:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia Talk_page_guidelines - Behavior that is unacceptable on Wikipedia

Editing or deleting your own words is up to you.

Don't threaten people: For example, threatening people with "admins you know" or having them banned for disagreeing with you.

I am asking you to use the discussion page of the concerned article. I don't care if you are wrong or right here in your page. Unless you don't refer to the article talk page, your edits would be removed. Svest 03:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR

You are in violation of the Wikipedia:three revert rule. You are not permitted to revert again for another 24 hrs, or you will be blocked for 24 hrs. Thanks. El_C 03:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ==

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:3RR (This does not apply to self-reverts or correction of simple vandalism).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia.

My edit is beeing vandalised and therefore the 3 times rule is not relevant.

The vandals have broken this 3 rules:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines - Behavior that is unacceptable on Wikipedia : Editing or deleting your own words is up to you.

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines - Behavior that is unacceptable on Wikipedia : Don't threatening people with having them banned for disagreeing with you.

It's not a threat, it's a warning. You are free to appeal to another admin, though. My finding is that this does not ammount to the type of simple vandalism listed above since it does not (yet) pertains to an item of text which enjoys consensus. I reverted you precisely since you are not engaging in discussion through normal channels. If you do that, you would be in a far more credible position, policy-wise. Thanks. El_C 03:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] =

> I reverted you precisely since you are not engaging in discussion through normal channels

So people who do not waste their time enganging in discussions which leads to nothing but disagreement has no right to edit Wikipedia?

I know cause this topic has been discussed all over the world and nobody has yet come to any agreement. To agree about this is like agree about what the word "truth" means. It's impossible. Different ideologies and people have different opinions and can never agree about such special matters. The article about Islamism is a clear proof that a large group Muslims agree with what I write in this case. Do you ever think they would change their mind just by some discussion? Why do you even consider that there may be an agreement in this case?

I'm not really interested in getting into that sort of polemic except in so far as to mention that this is a collaborative project. The more pressing point is that you only get three reverts per day, like any other editor. So, please adhere to that policy. Thanks in advance. El_C 06:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)