User talk:FiveRupees

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Almahdi.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Almahdi.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism?

excuse me? that's not vandalism. everybody except the friggin taliban knows that the bhuttos are sunnis, not shias. dont you dare threaten me! Raabbasi 03:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fatimah

Hi, could you please discuss the issues on the talk page and seek consensus before reverting. We are trying to get this article to GA status and if you feel things need to change, then raise them on the talk page. Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 11:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I am asking again for you to justify your changes as it currently looks like vandalism. → AA ^(talk) — 22:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Shia Islam. 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 original reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 20:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your post. i will be interested to see the sources produced and their respective quality. assuming that it is true that Ibn al-Haytham was born under Buwayhid rule - you should note that Shi'ite Buwayhid control in Iraq was only for a comparitively small number of years - there is no reason to believe that the population in that time had converted to Shi'ism. we need a source explicitly stating he was a Shi'ite, we cannot afford to make any original assumptions. in any case, i am not sure what the achievements of these scientists has to do with Shi'ism's basic tenets that it must be mentioned in the second paragraph of the article (see WP:UNDUE). thanks. ITAQALLAH 00:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please take it to talk

Rather than engage in a slow revert war over the Shia Islam article, lets follow the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle instead, and take this dispute to the talk page for some collaboration and consensus building. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please respect Wikipedia's character

Why did you call my good-faith edit "vandalism"?[1] You yourself, by not assuming good faith and revert warring, repeatedly adding challenged information while refusing to provide a citation, and not discussing the issues on the article talk pages, are more susceptible to that label. Please take some time to review the five pillars that define Wikipedia's character.  --Lambiam 09:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warnings

Note: Always remember to substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings.
Older warnings may have been deleted, but are still visible in the page history.
[Admin: block | unblock / Info: contribs | page moves | block log | block list]

[edit] November 2007

1. Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Shia Islam. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Verum (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Please do not assume ownership of articles such as Shia Islam. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours. Do not insert disputed information without providing a reliable source. Do not edit war. —Ruud 19:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Learn manners

First off, you have been extremely rude to me, you have crudely questioned my intentions and my faith. But, you know, looking into your history of warnings and being blocked, I don't expect much more from you.

I swear to Allah (swt), that if I am lying to make me die the most miserable sort of death, that I am a Twelver and do taqleed under Sayed Khamenei. I have recently switched to Khamenei after accepting Wilayatul'fiqh as a valid form of government, before I did taqleed under Sayed Sistani (which reflects my older political views as well), but nonetheless I keep my Kemalist and secular sympathies, and if you don't understand that you do not understand the essential nature of Mustafa Kemal's reforms, and I suggest you get a book and educate yourself, rather than hat dancing to whatever your South Asian malang friends are telling you. You can ask Seyyed to confirm my Twelver faith as well, we are friends outside of Wikipedia.

If you want to argue the changes, you will do so respectfully on the talk pages, and not be a child. My edits mostly reflect my personal knowledge on Ismailism. Look at the Ismaili article, read it, note that in their faith the Agakhan IV is Allah himself. Note that what I did to the Shi'ah articles was take away the essential bias from both Twelverism and Usulism, because, we are running an encyclopedia here. My deep knowledge of heretical groups does not mean I am one of them.

Oh, and the format you reverted to? That was my design as well, for both the Shia and Twelver templates. Before they were even more hideous, you should check the edit histories. So you are essentially pitting my old design against my new one.

In our encyclopedic definition of Shi'ah, Ismaili and Zaidi are included. In the encyclopedia definition of Muslim, even Ahmadiyya are included, oh, I did their template too. In my definition, the only person who is a Shi'ah is a Twelver who follows Jafari Fiqh, meaning the Alevis, Ahl-e-haqq, Nusayris, and so forth are not included.

Thanks for your policing of me, I'm sure even if you're an Usuli, your Punjabi malang friends would be proud. Go and do something useful please, more befitting of your IQ level. I suggest midget tossing. --Enzuru 21:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There are much more Twelver Pashtuns than Ismaili ones, and in fact, I have never heard of a Pashtun Ismaili. The Ismailis in Afghanistan are almost exclusively Hazara and Tajiks. Once again, research would have been helpful, please check the Pashtun article yourself: Most Pashtuns follow Sunni Islam, most of them its Hanafite branch. A small minority of Ithna Asharia Shia Pashtuns is largely concentrated in Afghanistan. And insulting you? You have been constantly insulting my faith and my work and my intentions. We will keep the present ones, because you are the only one who has an issue with it. I've made preparations for our discussion on the talk pages. --Enzuru 22:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008

With regard to your comments on Talk:Shia Islam: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. The religious affiliation of the editor you were referring to is no concern of yours as long as his edits follow Wikipedia's neutral POV guidelines. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Salam Alaykum, nice to meet you bro

As I know it's not a good way to put such comments[2]. I revert your edition and invite you to discuss in the talk page of the article. Thanks. --Seyyed(t-c) 02:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shia Islam

You appeared to be undoing Itaqallah's edit because you felt that the editor's personal religious affiliation (sunni) made him unfit to edit an article on Shia Islam.

While I can sympathize with this notion, as my personal beliefs regarding Islam support the Shia point of view, I saw little about his edit that appeared to be POV to me. It also seemed that you removed some information which appeared to be accurate and verifiable information on the etymology of the term as well as some initial information regarding the nature of the belief (replacing it more prominently with statistical information).

Perhaps I am missing something that you see more clearly than I do. I will admit, my personal experience with Islam is rather short lived compared perhaps with that of those who have lived their entire lives in Muslim communities. I am quite fallible, and it is certainly possible I have overlooked something, and do not worry about hurting my feelings when pointing it out to me. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that yours significantly contributed to the readability of the article and it removed some of the information provided and moved more pertinent information lower while replacing it with more extraneous information. I do not object to the inclusion of the information that you mentioned I merely think that you are mistaken about the nature of your edit.

As to breaking the three-revert rule I strongly advise against it, because it would mean that you would more than likely get blocked and then your edit would be reverted anyway. I made the mistake of breaking that rule once on the Black Stone page back when I first started at Wikipedia because I felt that the image was an extraneous and unnecessary image placed there just to offend the people who consider creating or viewing images of the Prophet Muhammad to be forbidden under their religious beliefs, and that it was an inaccurate image regardless. I now have that particular tarnish on my record and people may make the assumption that I am associated with the movement to have that image removed for religious reasons. As a consequence, I now abstain from editing and commenting on that article, so as not to associate my misbehavior with those who are trying with honest methods and operating through reason to accomplish the same end.

Beware the temptation in that regard. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do you know what wikipedia is not?

Salam Alaykum

I'm a Shia even if you disagree with me. I don't disagree with what you've written but I think you aren't familiar with the rules such as WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a place for propagation. Your first paragraph is against all of the basic rules of wikipedia. Shia Islam (Shī‘a Arabic: شيعة; šīʿa is collective; Shī‘i, šīʿi, is singular), is the second largest denomination of Islam, after Sunni Islam. Shi'a Muslims, though a minority in the Muslim world, constitute the majority in Iraq, Iran and Lebanon, countries considered to be the cradles of civilisation. Most scholars and polymaths of the Islamic Golden Age were Shi'a Muslims, including Avicenna, Geber, al-Farabi, Alhacen and Al Tusi. should be verified by using reliable source and definite facts. Or you can say X believes that .... However the lead is not good place for the issue. You can add it in the body of the article. You can make a new section for example Participation in Islamic civilization and move your claim to there. Then try to find a reliable source and add it. God bless you.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings

Salaam FiveRupees,

Seyed is one of our most valuable and neutral editors helping with the Shia related articles. It is sad to see that you guys have a conflict. Imam Ali said "I advise you, and all my children, my relatives, and whosoever receives this message, to be conscious of Allah, to remove your differences, and to strengthen your ties. I heard your grandfather, peace be upon him, say: "Reconciliation of your differences is more worthy than all prayers and all fasting." There are positive and negative points about all religions and if the readers confront with only positive points, they will lose their confidence about the neutrality of the article and would not accept any of those positive points either. I hope we can all work together for achieve neutrality in wikipedia. There is nothing more important than presenting truth, be it affirmative of against a certain religous belief, and I think that's what God in the end values most. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Completely out of line.

I assume good faith as often as possible, but your edit was completely out of line and the blatant POV of your edit summary exposes that. You stated:

what's sad is that the Shia users are the ones reverting the more better version to the uglier one. If they started thinking from their brains instead of their asses they wouldn't be called heretics

Consider this a warning. Do not continue to violate Wikipedia guidelines with your POV edits and your personal attacks on other editors based on their beliefs. I believe that you have it in you to be a good editor and contribute peaceably to Wikipedia but if you continue in this manner I shall have to report you, and I'd prefer it didn't come to that. For now I suggest you take some time to try and distance yourself from the issue before editing. If you can't do that, I suggest you restrain yourself to editing articles that you can be unbiased about. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Shia Islam. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. This is your final warning. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: disrespect

I have stated in its entirety my reasons in your talk page. You are out of line and violating Wikipedia guidelines. You are being insulting to others and undoing multiple editors' edits in order to maintain your own. This is unacceptable behavior in the form of bias, personal attacks, edit warring, and assuming article ownership. You are going to need to settle down and learn to edit harmoniously with other editors PDQ or my options in resolving this are limited.

As for disrespect, I have shown you the respect of warning you and inviting discussion on the matter as opposed to simply reporting you. Please recognize that I am not out to get you, and I have no personal wish to see you blocked. So please, stop, and if you have issue with this I suggest you take it to the talk page until it is resolved. Wikipedia has a process for such things, and edit warring shall accomplish nothing. I speak from personal experience in this matter. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I shall not revert my edit. Many editors, myself included, disagree with your conclusions regarding your edit and you have made it abundantly clear with your statements that you are editing from a position of bias. Furthermore, your personal attack here was noted:

By not replying you continue to disrespect yourself. But I wouldn't expect better behavior from a Baha'i.

I notice you retracted your statement once you saw that I did reply, but nevertheless your prejudice towards me for my beliefs becomes apparent. But as I replied, something you "didn't expect" as you say, perhaps you should consider the possibility that your expectations of Baha'is are flawed. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Kralizec! (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I don't think I was in a circa March 2007 discussion

But the subject comes up every few months or so anyway. There was a general RfC on userboxes back in January here. Anway, I don't have a pro-Hezbollah userbox on my user page, a have a userbox supporting the use of a pro-Hezbollah userbox. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 unrest in Lebanon

Salam. I think there are some wrong statements in the article such as Sunnis supporting the government and Sunni forces in Beirut had surrendered their arms. I put a comment on the talk page.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Do not add unsourced statements, and stop calling reversions of your made up facts vandalism. And don't swear. Please do not edit the article anymore. Narayanese (talk) 05:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm just trying to make the sentence say what your sources say. You might want to find better sources. Lebanon's demographics have been the subject of a great deal of study, so I wouldn't expect this to be too difficult. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Pictures

Thank you for your kind words, we have been both working diligently and hard to improve articles in regards to our beloved Twelve Imams (AS). Now, I understand your concern with this, because you do bring up some valid points from a religious perspective. And yes, it is offensive to some, but, as many have discussed before, for Shi'a it seems to be more culturally offensive than religiously, and with the advent of the Internet these cultural mores are starting to change.

But, I honestly don't feel any of that is the issue. I don't know where you're from (I'm guessing if you're not South Asian you just like Zelda alot), but if you have ever gone or seen pictures of an Alevi building in Turkey or an Usuli one in Iran or Iraq, you will see portraits of our beloved Imams (AS) inside. These two countries have the two most differing groups of Twelver in the world, but they both contain this asset. I don't think the depictions are that handsome either, they are the Alevi ones and tend to be less Arab-looking than the Iranian depictions. They look very Turkish in fact, which is interesting from a anthropological perspective. I don't mean to say Turks are ugly however, lol.

Take a glance of this picture of Imam Husayn (AS) on a pilgramage to Karbala: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Arbaeen.JPG

Can you imagine someone with a picture of the Prophet (AS) going into Medina? The thing is, even if all the editors here say it is offensive (which isn't true, it is mostly Lebanese and South Asians that have the issue with it), they have very little outside sources to support their opinion. So the argument starts to fall off a religious perspective and into the perspective of Wikipedia, where this is really improving the look and content of the articles. It also gives a more complete perspective for the Twelver faith, because we are showing Turkish depictions in what is primarily seen as an Iranian religion.

You're absolutely right, they aren't representative. We came to a conclusion on the Twelve Imams talk page that we should specify that (even though no other religious group is doing so, every Christian knows the pictures of Jesus aren't accurate these days), so each picture has the phrase Modern depiction underneath it, to show these pictures only extend a century or a few into history and can't possibly be accurate.

I tried to edit the pictures and make the Imams look more divine. For example, you can compare the version on the left to the version on the right. I wasn't trying to lighten their skin, rather I was trying to add a shining nour to their face. And I don't believe they all look alike, just very Turkish and bearded.

This argument can go on for a while, and I'd be more than happy to continue it. I understand it is not a clearly cut issue, though perhaps as far as Wikipedia goes it is. Now, do you mind helping me with Ahl al-Kisa and helping PeterDeer with Ahl al-Bayt? I know you'll do excellent with saving the Shi'a perspective on these articles. The former article was created because Itaqallah had an issue in regards to us overdoing the Shi'a perspective on Ahl al-Bayt. So what we need to do is make Ahl al-Kisa more fleshed out with how in Shi'a perspective they are Ahl al-Bayt, and also point to that on the Ahl al-Bayt article. Also, on the Shi'a Islam template, do you think we should link to Ahl al-Kisa or Ahl al-Bayt? We shouldn't link to Ahl al-Bayt until the article is more clear, in my opinion. My feeling is that the conception of Ahl al-Bayt in Sunni Islam is less noteworthy to the faith than it is in Shi'a Islam, just like a Christian can argue Christ is more noteworthy in Christianity than Islam. --Enzuru 17:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I am debating the collapsible nature myself. Let's take the conversation here and I'll get some other editors to debate this with us: [3] --Enzuru 19:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)