User talk:Farrukh38

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] March 2008

Bradv15 It is to be requested that please revert the name of AL-kitab as Islamic Holy books and make that article seprate as these two are different and not same. not new but about existing text of Quran.knowledge and research. thanksFarrukh38 (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Bradv15 Editor2020 started this without having discussion. please read talkpage of farrukh38 and read all my replies even then Editor2020 did that with the page. first he suggested to change the name, which was changed by me, then he says the page looks like Islamic holy books and redirected ther.

 research, knowledge  references also gave.

I have requested to have a third party opinion to have solution of this dispute. it seems that few wikipedea admis are here just to write what they want and not the truth. if the case is such then will wait a third party.

Farrukh38 (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the recent edit you made to Injil has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Pewwer42  Talk  17:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


If you felt that was in error, go ahead and put it back, it just looked like link spam in the comparison view--Pewwer42  Talk  17:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for calling me respectable(and sir for that matter)as to what you wrote, I would suggest you suggest it on the articles Talk Page and left others agree on its validity first(also suggest grammatical changes if needed). As to formatting, I'm not that good at it myself but I think it should look something like this
First revealed Al-kitab which confirms what is in between his two hands and revealed At-taurat and injeel. [1]
This in the editing box looks like this->First revealed Al-kitab which confirms what is in between his two hands and revealed At-taurat and injeel. <ref name="Translations of the Qur'an">{{cite web|url=http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html/#003.003|title=Translations of the Qur'an|date=2008-03-01|3:03|publisher=University of Southern California}}</ref>
using this will give the reference at the end of the article looking like this
  1. ^ Translations of the Qur'an. University of Southern California (2008-03-01).
if {{reflist}} has been added to the page

hope this helps--Pewwer42  Talk  00:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Qur'an, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add your reference to the article. Additionally, you don't need to sign contributions you add to the article page because who added what can be seen in the history. Signing is important for talk pages when we're discussing with each-other. See WP:SIG. Thanks. ITAQALLAH 23:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Qur'an. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 17:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation help

{{helpme}}

Hello Farrukh. Do you have a specific question? It appears there may be some technical problems with your recent edits. If that is why you used the {{helpme}} template, please refer to the Wikipedia policy links that the other editors have suggested. Hoof Hearted (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

would you please help me out by correcting the wrong citaion and reliable sources. thanks

Understand that I am not a scholar of the Qur'an, so I know very little about the subject matter. It appears that others are questioning the reliability of the information you linked. If you feel that your sources meet Wikipedia policies for Verifiability and Neutrality, I think the best thing to do is discuss the issue on the Qur'an talk page as you started yesterday. Hoof Hearted (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Farrukh, you are inserting {{fact}} tags where citations are already present, while simultaneously inserting your own unsourced and largely incoherent material. Please stop doing this. It would be a lot better if you could explain on the talk page exactly what changes you would like to see, because that's one thing I'm not really understanding from your comments. ITAQALLAH 22:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at this Farrukh: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam#Reference_Materials --Be happy!! (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

ITAQALLAH, you are not getting my point, i have placed citation tag where you have used Qura verse and that verse does not have that claim which is a misguiding in the name of Qur'an, please have a look below for your claim that Quran revealed in 23 years, besides britannica reference mentioned this 17:106 verse of Quran which does not say in its text 23 years so it is to be requested that if you donot consider the text of Quran as reliable source than please do not propagate wrong about any verse of Quran.
pasting the arabic text to show you that this verse cannot be used for a claim that Quran revealed in 23 years which the verse is not verifying.

17:106 وقرانا فرقناه لتقراه على الناس على مكث ونزلناه تنزيلا


Transliteration Waqur-anan faraqnahu litaqraahu AAala alnnasi AAala mukthin wanazzalnahu tanzeelan Literal And a Koran We distinguished it to read it on (to) the people on slow deliberation/comprehension , and We descended it descending.

Yusuf Ali (It is) a Qur'an which We have divided (into parts from time to time), in order that thou mightest recite it to men at intervals: We have revealed it by stages. Pickthal And (it is) a Qur'an that We have divided, that thou mayst recite it unto mankind at intervals, and We have revealed it by (successive) revelation. Arberry and a Koran We have divided, for thee to recite it to mankind at intervals, and We have sent it down successively. Shakir And it is a Quran which We have revealed in portions so that you may read it to the people by slow degrees, and We have revealed it, revealing in portions.


for Arabic language, the your claim in Qur'an is that AL-kitab is referred to "scriptures" there is not citation but on the mushaf there is citation as there was not Qur'an verse so io didnot put there citation tag. please read all carefully before taking any action. it can be discussed more to tell you to write the truth in wikipedea.. Pleaae donot take personal but improve the article by changing its name " Quran as per research and not as per its text" ThanksFarrukh38 (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC) hope you got the point .

[edit] Al-kitab as per Qur'an

A tag has been placed on Al-kitab as per Qur'an, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

Please do not put personal messages in the article mainspace, as the people to whom they are directed are unlikely to find them there. Thank you. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 15:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply, would you please help me out in telling how can the contents can be shown because it has a very big text even then it has been deleted as shot text. --Farrukh38 (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You might want to try Talk:Qur'an. But be advised that talk pages in Wikipedia should be used for discussing improvements on articles, not as a forum for the topics themselves. If you are here to promote a point of view, Wikipedia is not the right place. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 15:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
There... I moved the page to User:Farrukh38/Al-kitab as per Qur'an. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 15:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont want to discuss Qur'an because there already i have written a lot but no reply about my all points to improve article for wikipedea,But i want to learn from you to merge my text to improve al-kitab as per Qur'an article thanks--Farrukh38 (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you should move the article back to its previous location: we want people to find it easily, so Al-kitab is much more natural to type in a search box than Al-kitab as per Quran which, anyway, sounds like you are providing original research. Just my 2¢. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 16:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

it sounds to you but not own research but proving the wrong meanings abot the word of AL-kitab from the text of Al-Qur'an, which is not good for wikipedea it self. please write on AL-kitab as per Qur'an's talk page and better we should invole third party for better opinion. thanks--Farrukh38 (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC) To, Blanchardb please come on AL-kitab talk page instead of my own talk page to show all comments to administrator, or should i paste all these comments on Al-kitab as per Qur'an talk paste? thanks--Farrukh38 (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Al-kitab as per Qur'an

A tag has been placed on Al-kitab as per Qur'an requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 19:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "as per"

Hello, I'm trying to help make some Islam related pages understandable to English-speaking people. One thing I would recommend is that you not use the term "as per" in articles.--Editor2020 (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

ph really thank u very much, but how can i change it. i also want to write about this word as per text of Qur'an which is in Arabic. thats why i choosed this title, and for arabic text citation i also used extra links is that no good? and where can i find external link from wiki....please do help me out ..Farrukh38 (talk)

20:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed "as per" plz check now and suggest for more improvement.thank Farrukh38 (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on Talk Pages

Farrukh38, I encourage you to respond to recent messages by Editor2020 and myself on Talk:Al-kitab (Quran). The article is in danger of being deleted, as has already been done to Al-kitab as per Qur'an (6 times). —BradV 21:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Bradv15 please look in to the Editor response. replied to him still waiting for my text of article AL-kitab (Quran) . this will also be deleted as Al-kitab as per Quran which has so many discussions on talk page. plead and tell did he respond the replied arguments before changing the name of article as Al-kita. Farrukh38 (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC) thanks

As I indicated below, you moved Islamic holy books to AL-kitab. Editor2020 cannot fix that, neither can you or I. I have asked an administrator for help. —BradV 16:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Bradv thank you very much for help. please help me in improving this before deletion. it can be discussed at discussion page before deletion. thanking you and waiting for reverting actual page. Farrukh38 (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

BradV for your information,

Editor2020 has reverted edits by writing " made coherent" with out seeing talk page under section " versions of Quran having word Injil in in given references. which is under discussion 

is wrong reference of Quranic verse coherent?

is claims with Quran verses in coherent under Quran section of article Injil

[edit] Al-kitab (Quran)

Farrukh38,

I suggest that you delete the Al-kitab (Quran) article.

  • It duplicates information that is at Islamic holy books. Multiple articles about the same subject aren't allowed.
  • It has a multitude of problems which are probably not fixable without deleting and starting over.
  • It appears to be original research.

You can watch and learn about the editing process at Islamic holy books. If you feel that there is any information that you could add to the subject, you should make small, correctly spelled and grammatically correct edits with references.

If Wikipedia has a version in your native language, I suggest that you go there to learn about how Wikipedia works and editing. --Editor2020 (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Editor2020


AL-kitab(Qura) looks similar to Islamic Holy Books, because half of Islamic holy books is as per text of Quran. or like Tawrat Injeel Qur’an the interpretation of text of Qur'an is used which is not as per existing text of Quran which is in Arabic, but interpretation of text of Quran.

AL-kitab(Quran) is a new name of AL-kitab as per Qur'an as per your suggestion, AL-kitab(Quran) contains the truth of text of Quran which is existing and not new which is in line with wikipedea, Original research The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, which is in all articles having concept of 4 holy Books in the name of Text of Quran, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified).

AL-kitab as per Quran is not a new knowledge but existing knowledge i.e as per text of AL-Quran which is not new but existing as Arabic Quran

Islamic Holy Books for the subject about previous scriptures looks as his origional research because of interpreting the text of Quran .

  • The term knowledge is also used to mean the confident understanding of a subject with the ability to use it for a specific purpose if appropriate.

Purpose of AL-kitab(Quran) is to give the confident understanding of AL-kitab as per text of Quran which is not new and not interpretation of existing text of Quran.

The articles having concept of previously revealed holy books can be improved as per text of Quran to bring them as per wikipedea standard of truth. thanks Farrukh38 (talk) 07:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Editor2020 you wrote that "suggestion" but before having reply moved the page. the edits made also you have changed now it doesnot looks like islamic holy books even then you moved their.Farrukh38 (talk) 07:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive

Okay, this started out innocent but now you're starting to disrupt Wikipedia. You have moved Islamic holy books over your own personal preference, without any discussion with anyone else. Now Al-kitab redirects to Islamic holy books which redirects to AL-kitab. Can you explain why you would do that? Its such a mess now we need an admin to fix it. —BradV 13:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Bradv.: please help, my article has been deleted even it was under discussion. They are not considering the text of Quran as reliable source while the article is for Quran. The claims about Quran must be verified with text of Quran. why the wikipedia doesnot allow truth? why the informations about Quran donot verifiable with text of Quran. nobody has right to write any thing as per his will about Quran...Farrukh38 (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Posting correctly on talk pages

When you post a new topic on talk pages you should use the '+' to add a new section, don't just put it anywhere on the page. When you add to an existing section you need to put your reply at the bottom of that section.--Editor2020 (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Editor2020 ok thanks for guiding. would you please change revert the AL-kitab (Quran), as this doesnot have a similar text as Islamic Holy Books. thanksFarrukh38 (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Al-kitab (Quran)

I have nominated Al-kitab (Quran), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-kitab (Quran). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request to consider Arabic text of Quran

Respected ,: HelloAnnyong . Do you want to say that wikipedea promote wrong informations about Quran?. No. wikipedea has edit sytem just to promote correct knowledge. I have given references of wikipedea like knowledge research on the talk page. please consider the Arabic text of Quran as reliable source which has been published by so many people. i recieved a call for paricipation but the link for reply was not secure that is why couldnot reply. Wikipedea shopuld promote truth and not people thoughts about Quran. Article of Quran must be as per text of Quran and not about Quran. If you like you can merge it with Quran but as apage " as per Text of Quran". Thanks Farrukh38 (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notice

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Consensus. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Administrators. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. The policy pages are not the appropriate place for you to carry on this discussion. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom.: this is not experiment but i wanted to tell administrator that in wikipedea my article has been deleted even the discussion on the way. instead of replying somebody has deleted Al-kitab(Quran)...now i have come to know wikipedea doesnot allow truth about Quran but falshood which is called reliable source citation in wikipedea. wikipedea should stop writing about Quran but must write as per text of Quran....thanks Farrukh38 (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The reasons for the deletion are all in the debate. Remember that all I did was measure consensus with impartiality. If you dispute the result, you are free to go to deletion review. Singularity 22:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I believe that Singularity has indicated the proper forum for you to bring your concerns re: deleted articles. If you have further questions, please feel free to ask - here, on my talk page, at deletion review, at the Wikipedia Village pump discussion area - but NOT on the Policy Pages themselves. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I say again, all of the reasons are stated in the AfD. Users have also told you on the article's talk page before the discussion began that the article's topic is not legitimate for inclusion. The reasons are:
        • Contentfork - The article you wrote covers the same topic as Qur'an and Islamic holy books, giving the possibility for redundancy and bias, something we don't want on Wikipedia.
        • WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:V - In the article's references, all you cite is the Qur'an. The Qur'an is a primary source, and citing primary sources as the major source of information is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia. Secondary sources (published, reliable sources speaking of the primary source) should be used instead.
Remember, as the user above said, you are free to discuss this in a broader community at deletion review. Singularity 23:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Singularity...2- nobody replied my questions or considered my replies on tal;k page but deleted the article, the same questions are replied on talk page too but you are also writing the same as all other did.

what the above user is saying is not true, 1- it is not same as [islamic holy books] or like [Qur'an] but totally opposite because they are telling 4 books but text of Quran is not saying any where in whole quran that there are 4 holy books as per Quran. this exists in sources to which wikipedea calls "secondary source".

3-References all from Quran was just because the text of Quran can only be the truth which can verify all what about its text is. so the wikkipedea rule of primary source doesnot guilt in case of Quran. Because nobody has right to write what ever he feels likes in the name of Quran and wikkipedea takes that a true source which doesnot match with the text of Quran. if i write myself then should i not write what i am just because that i am primary source? please reinstate Alkitab(Quran) and follow or apply wikipedea rules same as applied with other articles. thanks (Farrukh38 (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC))

Hello, I believe that Singularity has indicated the proper forum for you to bring your concerns re: deleted articles. If you have further questions, please feel free to ask - here, on my talk page, at deletion review, at the

Al-kitab*Quran) deleted forcely without conidering replies

Wikipedia Village pump discussion area - but NOT on the Policy Pages themselves. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I say again, all of the reasons are stated in the AfD. Users have also told you on the article's talk page before the discussion began that the article's topic is not legitimate for inclusion. The reasons are:
        • Contentfork - The article you wrote covers the same topic as Qur'an and Islamic holy books, giving the possibility for redundancy and bias, something we don't want on Wikipedia.
        • WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:V - In the article's references, all you cite is the Qur'an. The Qur'an is a primary source, and citing primary sources as the major source of information is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia. Secondary sources (published, reliable sources speaking of the primary source) should be used instead.
Remember, as the user above said, you are free to discuss this in a broader community at deletion review. Singularity 23:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Singularity...2- nobody replied my questions or considered my replies on tal;k page but deleted the article, the same questions are replied on talk page too but you are also writing the same as all other did.

what the above user is saying is not true, 1- it is not same as [islamic holy books] or like [Qur'an] but totally opposite because they are telling 4 books but text of Quran is not saying any where in whole quran that there are 4 holy books as per Quran. this exists in sources to which wikipedea calls "secondary source".

-References all from Quran was just because the text of Quran can only be the truth which can verify all what about its text is. so the wikkipedea rule of primary source doesnot guilt in case of Quran. Because nobody has right to write what ever he feels likes in the name of Quran and wikkipedea takes that a true source which doesnot match with the text of Quran. if i write myself then should i not write what i am just because that i am primary source? please reinstate Alkitab(Quran) and follow or apply wikipedea rules same as applied with other articles. thanks (Farrukh38 (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC))