User talk:ReligionScholar

3RR warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop your disruptive editing, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You broke the 3RR rule above, and so you have been reported to the administrators [[1]]. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined to block you. I don't feel that the way you have been treated is appropriate, and I'd like to apologize for any problems you've been having. So please, what seems to be the problem? Perhaps I can help you out. Prodego ^talk 04:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i thank you prodego, pls see the discussion page and you will understand the issue. ReligionScholar (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that the meaning of the term "People of the Book" in Islam is being misrepresented in the article, if I understand correctly? Which parts exactly are the issue, and what would you say the correct way to put it would be? Prodego ^talk 05:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

prodego please see the article in the current form and let us know if the compromise is good. thanks ReligionScholar (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's policies

Instead of stating what you think is true, you need to read and abide by Wikipedia's policies, including:

Spend an hour reading them, and then think about your arguments, and how you want to edit. You have to play within the rules. If you play Football, you can't say, the rule is stupid, I'm not going to abide by it, or the referee will kick you out. It's the same in Wikipedia; you want to edit, edit by the rules. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk)

People of the Book

Do you believe that Muslim scholars who call Hindus People of the Book wrong? Do you believe that Shi'a Muslims in Iran who call Zoroastrians People of the Book wrong? They are interpreting the same Quaranic verse as you are. That's why you need to use secondary sources. Please read the policies noted above. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 05:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

which is the whole reason i made a seperate section so that you can discuss these controversial opinions of a few muslims in that section. but do not change the original definition. ReligionScholar (talk) 05:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not controversial at all, nor is of a few Muslims. Shi'a Muslims constitute 20% of Muslims, and the number of Muslims in Pakistan and India range in the billions. The Hanafi school of thought also considers Hindus people of the book. I would read some secondary sources and some history books. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a very small minority of shias would consider zoroastrianism as people of the book not even considering hinduism with all their idols. muslims in india and pakistan are in the billions?? i think you mean millions and as i said before it is the smallest minority among them that would have an "opinion" of hinduism as people of the book. Everyone knows that hinduism is a non-abrahamic religion what makes you think that hindus are regarded as people of the book? regardless of any of this there is a seperate section where you can discuss all this. the lead and the definition contains facts of islam, pls do not change this. thanks ReligionScholar (talk) 05:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Shi'a sect is definitely not controversial. It may be controversial to you, but that is not abiding to the neutral point of view policy of Wikipedia. And no, it is not true that a small minority of Shia's consider Zoroastrians to be people of the book. All of Iran, which comprises most of the Shias in the world consider Zoroastrians People of the Book. There are 250 million Muslims in Pakistan and India, and it's not true that a small minority consider Hindus People of the Book. Since the Muslim invasion of India, Muslim scholars who determine the policy for those countries have considered Hindus people of the book. That they are non-Abrahamic does not stop them from being people of the Book. That is your definition, and not the agreement of a significant portion of the Muslim community in the world, and again that is why we use secondary sources, as per Wikipedia policy. I ask again that you read the policies. Wikipedia is not a place to argue for what is True, but what is cited in secondary sources, as what you believe is true, goes against what other people believe is true. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 06:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i may have used a wrong word in calling shia "controversial" the word probably be different and i have omitted that now. what i was trying to say was that anyone among shias who considers hinduism as people of the book, that opinion would be controversial and they are small minority, similar in india. there is a seperate section which you can use. dont change the FACTS ReligionScholar (talk) 06:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not changing the facts. The facts are that there are significant viewpoints that don't accept what you believe is fact. And that is why we use secondary sources, and not what you believe is the correct interpretation of a primary source. Please read the Wikipedia policies. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 06:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't going to work. If you'd like me to personally explain why, I'd be happy to do so, here, or via email (Prodego@gmail.com) but I think the above editors, and the talk page of the article have pretty much summed it up. Prodego ^talk 06:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

prodego please see the current version and you will understand that it is completely neutral. jeff3000 you have given nothing but opinions. i have already put in the article the fact straight from the quran, surah maidah which clearly outlines the people of the book. yet you have tried to purposefully remove this fact and replace it with "opinions". the surah is in its rightful place in the definition section as hard facts. ReligionScholar (talk) 07:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ReligionScholar, I have repeated this multiple times, but you fail to read the Wikipedia policies. Primary sources such as the Qu'ran are not sources that are acceptable to cite information in Wikipedia because they depend on user interpretation. Your interpretation of the Quranic verse, which you view as fact, is really just another opinion just like the other opinions (even though you don't believe so), and so we depend on secondary sources. Please read no original research. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

see discussion page, i am not going to waste anymore time. if you want to discuss something talk about it on the discussion page not on my page. if you cannot understand plain english that is not my problem. i have already shown you surah maidah, its in plain english and there is only one way of interpreting it. ReligionScholar (talk) 09:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another 3RR warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

Here's another 3RR warning. If you are going to be a valuable contributer to Wikipedia you need to follow by the rules, which means you cannot undo other editors edits more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i am not going to undo your edit, i am going to put my own edit. ReligionScholar (talk) 09:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imminent sanction

Please see WP:AN3#User:ReligionScholar reported by Jeff3000 (talk) (Result: ). You will be blocked if you don't agree to stop revert-warring on People of the Book. You've had plenty of time to figure out our policies. This stuff can't continue. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so if i dont undo but edit the page, does that count as a revert? ReligionScholar (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any time you change what a previous user has done, it counts as a revert. You've already done 12 reverts in a 24 hour period. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i did not know that.

but if that is the case then everytime i put the article in the neutral form you changed it back to the biased form, so you are in violation of the rule as well. ReligionScholar (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've only reverted 3 times in a 24 hour period, which is within the rules. You've done it 12 times which is against the rules. I've asked you to read the policy pages numerous times, but you just don't want to read the policy pages. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i think i get it. you are posing as different usernames to avoid the rule. is that right? so i am probably dealing with the same person since ip addresses are randomly selected. ReligionScholar (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, assume good faith is another policy. By believing that other editors are the same you a breaking that policy. In fact, 5 different editors have all reverted your edits because they believe your edits are not in line with Wikipedia policy. Another wikipedia policy which you should read is consensus. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so if the 3 of you are hindus then you would obviously have consensus among yourselves as compared to consesus with me. i have put the article in the neutral form many times but you have simply removed my facts and the others gained consensus with you and not me.

another point is that you keep saying you know muslim scholars who consider hindus as people of the book. if i am not mistaken muslims in india hate hindus and vice versa. i doubt you will find any muslim in india who is going to consider hindus as people of the book. ReligionScholar (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last chance

ReligionScholar, I'm afraid you have not made a good answer. You've had plenty of warnings and explanations. If you don't *immediately* agree to stop edit-warring on this article, you will be blocked. You will also have to apologize for the 12 reverts. I suggest that you agree to stop editing this article for a week. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i am not aware of wikipedia policy, so i apologize for that however i would like to answer jeff on one issue. ReligionScholar (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No time to answer Jeff. If you promise to stop edit-warring, and agree to stay off the article for a week, you can avoid a block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok then

does that mean i can edit the discussion page and my page but i cant edit the article?

that is fine i guess but could you make sure that when the lock is put on the article, the article is in the neutral form and not the current biased form.

although 1 week seems like a lot! are you sure it has to be that long? ReligionScholar (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article will not be locked. I suggest you *agree* not to participate for a week. You may still discuss on the talk page, regardless. Normally, you would be blocked in this situation, I'm just giving you an option to avoid the block. Your abstention from the article for anything less than a week will be inadequate. EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so if i get "blocked", how long does it last?

or is that something bad that goes on my credit history in wikipedia

You can be blocked for as much as 3 days for an incident like this. The block will go in your log. You should be aware that the discussion here does not reflect well on you, and you should also be concerned about your long-term reputation on Wikipedia. Somebody who openly refuses to follow our policies will not last very long. EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how can the discussion not reflect well when i dont even know the policies to begin with.

damn you make it sound like wikipedia is the supreme court or something.

i think i will go with option A, which is not editing article for one week.

so "EdJohnston" what is your rank in wikipedia? are you like the sheriff or something? ReligionScholar (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Wikipedia admin. I am glad you are leaning towards Option A. Option A will also require your promise to stop edit-warring on this article? Are you willing to do that? EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i just read the definition of "edit warring" and if you look at the format i put the article in. mine was probably the most neutral format. if anything the other users were probably the ones who were in involved in edit warrings. ReligionScholar (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at People of the Book. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Sorry, time has just run out. You are blocked for 31 hours for Edit Warring at People of the Book. EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i dont get it, i already agreed to option A ReligionScholar (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

does not matter ReligionScholar (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did not promise to stop edit warring, which was a requirement of Option A. And your lawyer-type responses give us very little confidence for the future. You still think you did nothing wrong. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lawyer type responses? i thought i was joking around and having fun.

i think i already admitted before that i did not know that i did something wrong because i dont know wikipedia policy.

anyway it does not matter, i guess i learnt something new ReligionScholar (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretations of the Quran

This is with reference to your arguments on People of the book page where you claimed that the article should only contain Jews, Christians (and perhaps Sabians) since these are the only people mentioned by name in the Quran. While appreciating the value in your opinion I wished to make the following points:

The Quranic verses cannot be interpreted by you and me here as per wikipedia policy, nor can they be used as direct references for that would lead to the serious problems of differing interpretations by various editors. Hence we must supplement them by secondary sources.

It is not correct for any person to say that a Quranic verse can only be subject to only a single interpretation. Perhaps it appears so to that person but in a larger context maybe the verse can be interpreted differently. That is the reason we must supply neutral credible references from notable scholars and not self presume to be the judge.

I will like to remind you of the Prophet's hadith "Surely the Quran has an outward aspect, an inward aspect and a limit and a prelude." Similarly Ali (RA) said "If I so will I can load seventy camels with the exegesis of the opening Sura of the Book." If the Quran was open to only literal and direct interpretations then what is the meaning of this when the opening Sura is extremely short and has an literal exegesis of at most a few pages. Clearly the sura has other meanings too. Similarly other verses may have other meanings as well.

Regards-Shahab (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page procedures

Please bear in mind one of the directions at the top of the talk page: "Put new text under old text." New sections go at the bottom of the page. As a compromise, I've made your "More references..." section a subsection of the "Excellent answer..." thread at the bottom of the section. —C.Fred (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for that ReligionScholar (talk) 05:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]