User talk:Salim e-a ebrahim
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Salim e-a ebrahim, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Imamah (Ismaili doctrine)
[edit]If you click on this link you can see the differences. First you changed [[God in Islam|God]] to [[God|God]] but the first is the preferred version as the reader may not know about God according to Islam. Second you put NOT and HEREDITARY in all capitals but that's classified as shouting and they should be the same as the rest of the text. The paragraph "According to Ismailis, externally..." was sourced and you changed it to an unsourced version. Finally you removed the ==References= and everything below it which includes the non-English links and categories. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you can't see the edit button but I didn't remove it. If you still can't see the edit button try
this link and it should open the page for editing. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- It looks fine. Should be OK. Look at a random article and see if you can see an edit link it. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Just replied. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Please AGF
[edit]See WP:AGF. Your edit summaries were rather insulting. I didn't simply revert, I added referenced information and spent some time researching in order to do that. I tripled the number of references, for a start. You are also adding POV language to the article, see WP:NPOV. It's not up to us to say that the hymn asserts something, or to call Atenism monotheism, and we have to be very careful to make sure what Wikipedia articles don't assert anything as fact that isn't clearly fact. Dougweller (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Doug: I'm sure we can work this out for the good of Wiki.
1. What bothered me about was the very off-handed manner in which you handled my contribution. I had spent a lot of time and energy and yet I saw in the history of the edit that you had reverted to the original edit thus removing everything I had written. And you had also stated that you would write a new edit (without looking into my contribution to try and merge it in with your edit).
2. It seemed to me that you had added references which were one sided - negative. You did not add the references which were in favor of Akhenaten and Atenism.
3. Re NPOV: The article I improved upon was actually stating what the hymn was all about(!) under "analysis" and it was all backwards - about what the sun is doing for the animals, etc., etc. - asserting exactly the opposite of what the hymn was asserting! So, I brought the real words of the hymn to bear on the issue and I also read thoroughly all the info in the Wiki itself before making my edit - I even gave references to the Wlik pages by stating "see under Atenism,"etc where it says that this was the first monotheism; that it was the first time in history that there was a concept of a non-material Unique God who is not a material sun-god (and which concept of a sun-god is what you are asserting) - I tried my best to keep a NPOV and actually feel that you are teetering towards the opinions of the references that are antagonistic to the "fact" that Akhenaten was way ahead of his time.
4. The article and references say it is a hymn but you keep on calling it a poem.
5. I could not see (understand the instructions about) the lower and the upper halves - and so if I do not merge the two halves then be sure that I did not do so out of fear of losing the writeup in toto - I am still new in the game and not familiar with all the techniques. In which case I would like you to try and do the merging. I'll still look again after writing this message (I saw it was there for me when I hit the preview) in the hope that I can see and understand what "halves" are there because there is no such "halves" that I can see!
6. I am already trying to merge our two sides with the new writeup. When you revert something is it possible to get back the edit I had done? It takes a lot of time to rewrite all over again as I have had to do here - which of course did not make me happy at your action altho you may have done it in good faith.
Regards - I hope I am answering your message in the correct manner by having used the edit button. Salim e-a ebrahim 22:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi again, Doug: I am copying to you a message to another person called Mike who seems to be very fast on the delete button and actually deleted a reference item just on his feeling that I was providing a made-up reference in order to assert what I wanted to assert. I am finding that Wikipedia editing is very time consuming and it is like writing in the sand - it can all get wiped out because of a person who feels . . . anything! In your case you told me we cannot assert that Atenism is monotheistic but that is what some of the references are saying - not me. On the other hand you are quite comfortable in asserting that the Aten was but another way of invoking the sun-god - and i can see why because there are other references saying just that.
What I am trying to say to you is that you are (in good faith) also falling into the trap that what had been taught to us from childhood about ancient Egypt about their worship of the sun-god has become so strong to all of us that we too are unable to shed that belief and really try to read what the hymn is really saying. Here is what I am asking you to think about carefully: that you are not really conscious that you are asserting in an equal and opposite force what i am asserting that which is also referenced and which is also plain in the English translation of the hymn - and which is not my doing, of course because I have not translated it. And that is why i took this person called Mike to task that why - but why - remove a reference item just because he had some sort of a suspicion about my intentions.
All in all I'd like to ask you a very straight question since I see that you are also an administrator: Is this the norm that I will have to constantly write my defence to all and sundry who can simply hit the delete button and make me take somersaults just to try and recover the lost effort? All this has really taken a lot out of me and i feel that there is no way i can keep up with this method of editing since there seems to be just about no protection from people who may find something they do not like in the new edited version e.g. the previous edit i had corrected was full of false info concerning what the hymn was saying when it was not i.e. about animals and people needing the sun as a necessary natural phenomenon to govern their lives - and to grow crops, etc. - all well and good but it is not there in this version of the hymn in front of us. And yet nobody had corrected him as to his amazing assertions out of nowhere: all that which is not in the hymn and yet he was asserting all that! I truly hope that you understand what I am striving to drive at: that we cannot just write that which has been told to us over and over again but not take up the challenge to say something really strange that this Pharaoh was asserting the same thing that the Biblical Prophets were asserting in their time - and it is right there in front of our eyes in the translation.
As I said all this arguing is taking out of me more than what i can give in terms of time and effort - I cannot keep on doing this. So I need to know if there is a way out of this because I really do not want to get invested in an article such that any one can simply swipe it off the Wiki with a click of the mouse and i am left with a blank slate and a lot of arguing. Here below follows my message to Mike:
Hi Mike: I read your comment, "Undid revision 506805666 by Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) removed WP:OR disguised with 'reference'". It seems you have detected something incorrect in what I did because the reference you deleted was meant only to show that the hymn was translated by the referenced persons and that therefore it was not something created by me out of my imagination in order to assert an opinion [WP:OR (Original Research)] as you felt I had done.
I have no axes to grind since I am not an Egyptian or a Pharaoh-phile. What I stated is right there in the hymn itself staring us in the face! Clearly, I had nothing to do with the hymn itself since I have no expertise in reading hieroglyphs - and that is why the need of that reference to show that it is a bona fide translation - and you removed it! How does that help bring about a better article? After reading the hymn in translation please let me know whether I have stated something that is not there in the hymn itself. People have even compared it to Psalm 104. Clearly therefore it is to be regarded as a hymn and not even a poem.
The only thing that really shook me up was that this Pharaoh was living before the coming of Moses and was asserting that there was a "unique/sole God" or "spiritual Presence" on earth.
I hope I have clarified my side of the matter. On your side I see that you do a lot of reverts. Are you an Admin? If so then since I am new and getting my feet wet could you please tell me what it was that you have found in that reference which seemed to you to be like Original Research?
Regards Salim e-a ebrahim 03:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Salim e-a ebrahim 05:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Just to answer your last question. I've got almost 9000 pages on my WP:Watchlist plus their talk pages, so about 18,000 pages. So I see and revert a lot of vandalism. I've also been reverting quite a few WP:Sockpuppet edits, see WP:DENY. Then there are the editors who hate Kurds/Turks/you name your least favorite ethnic group, or members of various religions, and whose edits fall between [[WP:Vandalism as we definte it and just plain pov editing on behalf of their cause. There's a disturbing amount of copyvio also (copyright violations) that I delete also. We do have editors who do nothing but revert vandalism as it is possible to view all new edits and we've got tools to help editors find and revert vandalism. I do these basically as an editor and don't use my Admin tools. I'm still subject to all our policies and guidelines including WP:3RR (which has exceptions for obvious vandalism and WP:BLP violations but not pov edits).
- As for " had corrected was full of false info concerning what the hymn was saying when it was not i.e. about animals and people needing the sun as a necessary natural phenomenon to govern their lives - and to grow crops, etc. - all well and good but it is not there in this version of the hymn in front of us." That isn't a version of the hymn/poem, it's an excerpt from it. Here is Budge's translation which is not in copyright[1] to give you an idea of the length, but I wouldn't assume this translation is accepted today.
- Here is a link to the heiroglyphs[2]. I was about to link to a translation but I noticed that it was from Lichtheim's book which is still in copyright, so I can't link to that webpage.
- Yes, I think it's best described as a poem. A hymn is a song and there is simply no evidence that this was sung. Look at our article on Psalms - they are also poems.
- Editing Wikipedia can be time consuming and frustrating. I also get reverted after spending a lot of time (happened here, right?) but you can look at earlier versions and copy and paste from them which can make life easier. Which reminds me, if you copy from another article, make that clear in your edit summary with a link to the article you copied from, if you don't, you are actually violating the copyright of the editor(s) who wrote the bit you copied. Dougweller (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've just realised that you don't understand that you can't use another article as a reference or assume it meets with our guidelines and policies.. And minor point, sign your articles with 4 tildes, eg ~~~~ (I put 'nowiki' markup around them to show you what they look like) - that will produce your signature date and time. Dougweller (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Your recent edits
[edit]
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button 
or 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the problem was that I had checked the Wiki Markup box. I have unchecked it and I am signing this with the 4 tildes - hopefully it will work.Salim e-a ebrahim 10:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I do not know why my signature does not come up with a "talk" link in blue. I am going to try and use the html <nowiki> as suggested by Doug with the 4 tildes. Here goes: ~~~~
Sorry, I should have previewed that first. Anyway that didn't work so I'll use the signing button this time.--Salim e-a ebrahim 11:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Another try Salim e-a ebrahim 11:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think the problem you are having is caused by the wiki markup, don't put <nowiki> or anything like that in your edits, that stops Wiki markup. When I removed it, it worked, but because I was editing it added my signature. Dougweller (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Doug for responding. I looked up Sinebot FAQ on problem and it said to uncheck the markup box and save and that should fix it. I have also re-started my user page with en.Wiki as an extra measure. So here goes again Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
success! what a relief. Hold tight and I'll try to catch up on lost time. Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Original research
[edit]Hello, Salim. I am User:A. Parrot. We haven't interacted before, but I work a lot on articles related to ancient Egypt. I was writing a response to the discussion between you and Dougweller at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, when I realized that this part of my response might belong on your talk page instead. I realize you have good intentions and that Wikipedia's rules can be hard to grasp. But having seen your latest post in the discussion, I think this explanation about some of the problems with your edits is necessary. I may be too blunt here, but I do not mean to offend.
I don't know if you have read Wikipedia:No original research yet, but regardless, you do not seem to understand the fundamental issue. You cannot look at the text of the Great Hymn and draw your own conclusion about its meaning. For instance, the hymn calls Aten "Sole God"—but even texts in traditional Egyptian polytheism call their multiple gods by similar titles. And Egyptologists now believe that these titles do not contradict the traditional worship of multiple gods.
That is not to say Atenism cannot have been monotheistic; many, many scholars still believe it was. But you, by yourself, cannot grasp the complex nature of Egyptian culture or the nuanced meanings of Egyptian words simply by reading a translation of the Aten hymn. Neither can I, and neither can Dougweller. And if you can't do that, you can't say you understand the exact meaning that the hymn was written to convey. Think about all the judges who analyze laws and constitutions, the rabbis who analyze the Talmud, and the shaykhs who analyze the Hadith and disagree on the meanings of those texts, even though they understand the language and culture involved better than anyone today understands ancient Egypt. Would you try to involve yourself in their arguments without studying those subjects for years, as they have done?
The modern people who understand ancient Egypt best are Egyptologists. They are far from perfect, and they often disagree. But ideally, statements about Egyptian beliefs, the meaning of poems, and things like that should be sourced to the work of Egyptologists. Where they disagree, articles should point out the differences of opinion. It's the job of Wikipedia editors to decide how much to write about each viewpoint, how to organize articles, and what words to use to convey the opinions of experts. But the meaning of an article must be based on those reliable sources. There are good reasons to believe Akhenaten was a monotheist, but there are also some good reasons to believe he wasn't, at least not in the way we think of monotheism. The experts have made the arguments for both sides of the issue, and the article should reflect both those views, regardless of what you or I believe.
If you can understand these principles and edit accordingly, you can do a lot of good work on Wikipedia. The rules don't make it easy, but they make for a better encyclopedia. Thank you for reading this, and I hope it helps you.
My detailed response to your discussion with Dougweller is at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. A. Parrot (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Your question
[edit]I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Could you advise me what article you're talking about and explain the situation in a bit more depth? Bearcat (talk) 05:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, thought I would jump in here. I take it you are talking about this series of edits, which I have since reverted. There were multiple problems there besides the overwriting of the article such as red links when we have an article, Fatimah Al-Zahra instead of Fatimah, and the use of honorifics. Now to fix the problem you should take the added material and post it at Imamah (Mustali Ismaili doctrine) which you can create. When you do make sure to add an edit summary saying something like "Material imported from Imamah (Ismaili doctrine)" Then you can take the current material and post it to Imamah (Nizari Ismaili doctrine) creating that with a similar edit summary to the other one. Then, finally make an edit to Imamah (Ismaili doctrine) to a short explanation of what is common to both Nizari and Mustali. Make sure to link to the two new articles and use an edit summary like "Material exported to Imamah (Nizari Ismaili doctrine) and Imamah (Mustali Ismaili doctrine)". That should fix things. Of course the Mustali material will need a clean up but it can be done later. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Message added CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Disambiguation link notification for November 21
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Imamah (Nizari Ismaili doctrine), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Imamah (Ismaili doctrine) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Toolbox
[edit]I have found this toolbox very useful. I hope you do also. Editor2020 (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
|
All I can say is WOW! Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC) March 2013[edit]
May 2014[edit]
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for June 10[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shia Imami Ismaili Nizaris, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aql (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for July 20[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Caliph, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bayah. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for July 31[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nizari, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Noor. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Ahmadiyya Caliphate[edit]
Hello Consider this opening statement of belief: "The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community ... believes that the Ahmadiyya Caliphate ... is the re-establishment of the Rashidun Caliphate ...." This is an opinion altho it may have a reference from one of their own community theology books. Now consider my edit in terms of the above belief statement of the Ahmadiyya community and the below explanation: If you believe that the Ahmadiyya Caliphate established (after the passing away of the community's founder Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) is the re-establishment of the Rashidun Caliphate and which belief as you well know is a belief that no Muslim accepts, therefore the researcher/reader on Islamic topics has the right to know why that Ahmadiyya belief (about the re-establishment of the Rashidun Caliphate) is unacceptable to the Muslim majority (assuming that the Ahmadiyya can still be considered a minority Muslim sect in spite of all Muslim sects denying them any Muslim recognition) vis-a-vis the Muslim beliefs as follows: The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and their Caliphate are considered heretical by all Muslim groups due to one deep theological difference. The Quran asserts that: Mohammad is not the father of any of your men but he is the Messenger of God and the Seal (the last and final) of the Prophets. (Quran 33:40)[1] Prophet Mohammad also had said: Indeed there shall be thirty imposters in my Ummah, each of them claiming that he is a Prophet. But I am the last of the Prophets. There is no Prophet after me.[2][3] It's simply a matter of putting forward both referenced beliefs i.e. one against another referenced belief. I have no axes to grind against the Ahmadiyya. In fact I think it would have been better for the Ahmadiyya not to have mentioned anything about their Caliphate which makes no sense in Islam because it is against the belief system of a billion plus Muslims as opposed to their estimated 10 million(?) Ahmadiyyas worldwide. How are 10 million excommunicated Muslims going to push thru their candidate for a Muslim Caliph against that of one billion Muslims? Really it is altogether an absurd situation. Please let me know if you need more explanations. In the meantime I have cancelled your revert. Please also inform whether you are a Wiki Administrator since you are threatening to block me as if you are one. Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Stop threatening me and answer my explanations posited with care and concern or I'll complain about you and your bullying tactics. I doubt very much that you are an Admin from the way you are acting. Also be informed that it is you who is being disruptive to the Wiki editing process done in good faith. You have anything to say to me then use your logic and explain yourself the way I have taken the time and trouble in explaining to you. I have used 2 of the most powerful references in the Islamic world. They are not my opinion. If you don't agree to my edit then we can have a dispute resolution on the matter. Also, keep in mind that a simple link or book reference from an Ahmadiyya source does not in and of itself get excluded from being an opinion. To add insult to injury the article actually begins with a belief statement - and yet you have totally ignored my pointing it out to you. Why? Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 08:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
This article is made up of Ahmadiyya opinions and they have no real secondary sources because they are using 3 simple info links created by themselves (the Ahmadiyya) to bypass the Wiki test. I have changed my language to remove expressing an opinion. I am not opining anything now and I have also not removed any questionable references from the Ahmadiyya side also. All I have done is to simply reference the Quran and the Hadith and then quoted what the Ahmadiyya prophet himself asserted for himself (that he was a prophet). The reader can now make their own conclusion from all the quotes that are shown by both sides and the relevant references speak for themselves. I have not opined on anything per se.
 To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. NeilN talk to me 09:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC) I agree, let's all talk it over. Please do not revert the article at this point because it was you who started the revert war, not me. Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 09:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
@NeilN: Please use the proper topic heading to make it easy for all concerned to go to the proper place to read your post i.e just post it under my post and do not create a new section every time you make a post. Simply continue with the editing process in the same section. I have done this work 3 times now and you repeatedly ignore my request it as if my attempt to bring some sense to my talk page is of no concern to you. Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 10:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Imamate = Imamah[edit]Imamate (Ismaili doctrine) should be Imamah (Ismaili doctrine).. Only one letter is different. 68.100.172.139 (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. The rule makes sense and should be followed to keep orderly behavior on Wiki. Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Your draft article, User:Salim e-a ebrahim/Shia Imami Ismaili Nizaris[edit] Hello Salim e-a ebrahim. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Shia Imami Ismaili Nizaris". The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Rankersbo (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC) Hi, |
