Jump to content

User talk:Someone65: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Someone65 (talk | contribs)
cool
Twinkle removed: new section
Line 46: Line 46:
==Mecca==
==Mecca==
No, Mecca is not considered a Holy site for Baha'is. The holy sites in the Baha'i Faith are those that hve been dedicated as Shrines which are mostly in Haifa and Acre, in current-day Israel. That the Bab travelled to Mecca does not make it holy to the Baha'i Faith. The Bab travelled there to make a public proclamation of his mission in fulfilment of Islamic prophercy regarding the time of the return of Imam Mahdi, and that does not make it holy. Regards -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 00:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
No, Mecca is not considered a Holy site for Baha'is. The holy sites in the Baha'i Faith are those that hve been dedicated as Shrines which are mostly in Haifa and Acre, in current-day Israel. That the Bab travelled to Mecca does not make it holy to the Baha'i Faith. The Bab travelled there to make a public proclamation of his mission in fulfilment of Islamic prophercy regarding the time of the return of Imam Mahdi, and that does not make it holy. Regards -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] ([[User talk:Jeff3000|talk]]) 00:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

== Twinkle removed ==

I have temporarily removed your access to [[WP:Twinkle]], as that last run showed that you aren't showing proper judgment in its use. After you've practiced without it for a while, you can request that you be removed from the blacklist, either by using the {{tl|Adminhelp}} template here, or posting a request at the [[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents|admin noticeboard]].--[[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] ([[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|talk]]) 14:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:44, 18 January 2011

Merging

I think it will be better if the articles which are shorter, such as Islamic view of Elisha, are merged with the normal article on Elisha. I feel the same of David. Do you agree?--Imadjafar (talk) 06:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archive

Looks like someone already got it for you. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 08:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad/FAQ

I reverted this edit to the Muhammad/FAQ as vandalism. If this edit should not have been reverted let me know otherwise please be aware that Vandalism is not appreciated here and may result in your account being blocked from editing. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that your edit is not really suitable in that context. Please don't repeat it. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Talk:Muhammad/FAQ has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Adding an unsuitable statement using the summary "typo", and subsequently restoring it while calling its removal "vandalism" is not an appropriate use of the edit summary. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning. Don't make major changes with the edit summary "typo" as you did here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

Why not have a look at the Dutch or Arabic Wikipedia and see if there is something there that you could translate into English. You could put it in a sandbox and work on it there. Check out some of the Islamic articles to make sure they reflect a neutral point of view. I found this earlier and I suspect that there are plenty of articles that have been missed. You can check through new pages and see what needs cleaning up. Hope these help. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 23:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could install User:Lupin/Anti-vandal tool, and watch RecentChanges for a while -- you find some interesting stuff that way.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tags,

There should be a 'tag' tab on articles, towards the far right of the screen. I don't know if it's something you need to activate in your settings, but it works in mine.— dαlus+ Contribs 01:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how your Twinkle is set up but here's what I see. At the top of the page I see my user name and a bunch of other links. Below that from left to right are "Read", "Edit", "±", a star, a down arrow, "TW", "User", "Page" and then the search box. The "TW" tab has a down arrow which if you hover over it will show various options. On an article the last option is "Tag". Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 05:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm! You might have to change something in "My Preferences" or you may not have added all of Twinkle. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 06:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Can you clarify this edit? I am not the most well versed in the Quran, but that is how I have always understood it to be, and it does provide a source. -asad (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Quran says "farthest mosque" in [1]. In arabic 'farthest mosque' translates to Masjid Aqsa. Thats why Al-Aqsa mosque is signficant in Islam. The Dome of the Rock is simply an adjacent building which is often confused with Al-Aqsa mosque. If you look at the Holiest sites in Islam (Sunni) article, Dome of the Rock is not there. And I did not delete the part which has a reference. I only deleted the first sentence which had no ref. Someone65 (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so shouldn't we just delete the part that says it is one of the holiest places in Islam? You deleted the part in which it talks about it was the point in which Mohammed ascended into heaven.-asad (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that part is still there. check again please. Someone65 (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right! My apologies. I was just looking at the red. -asad (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem Someone65 (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Common Lisp edit revert

I invite you to discuss your objection to the changes I applied to the Common Lisp article under Talk:Common_Lisp#Dynamic_scoping_of_functions. Thanks. 66.11.179.30 (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Create

Well if it's a simple template you can usually create it yourself by typing in "Template:Whatever name you want" in the search box. Then click on the red link that shows up. Sometimes you can copy and adapt a similar template (or article) to create what you want. Hope that helps. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 18:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mecca

No, Mecca is not considered a Holy site for Baha'is. The holy sites in the Baha'i Faith are those that hve been dedicated as Shrines which are mostly in Haifa and Acre, in current-day Israel. That the Bab travelled to Mecca does not make it holy to the Baha'i Faith. The Bab travelled there to make a public proclamation of his mission in fulfilment of Islamic prophercy regarding the time of the return of Imam Mahdi, and that does not make it holy. Regards -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle removed

I have temporarily removed your access to WP:Twinkle, as that last run showed that you aren't showing proper judgment in its use. After you've practiced without it for a while, you can request that you be removed from the blacklist, either by using the {{Adminhelp}} template here, or posting a request at the admin noticeboard.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]