User talk:HyperGaruda/Archive 1

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, HyperGaruda, 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 discussion 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! SatuSuro 13:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

August 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Quranism. - Scr★pIron^IV 04:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.87.244 (talk)

Obvious fake is obvious... - HyperGaruda (talk) 04:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

re: Tolu-e-Islam quranistic?

Hello HyperGaruda,

Please take a look at the talk page of Quranism[[1]] and give your input regarding the information I've posted. A consensus has been established on this issue on the Parwez talk page and I would like other users active on the Quranism page to decide how to handle this. I hope we can all agree on the best solution on whether to keep Parwez listed on Quranism (with qualifications) or remove him altogether. Thanks. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 14:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Do not move articles

Do not move articles... Mid-Sha'ban and Sha'ban. Articles are only to have ' in the article and article's title per MOS. This is has nothing to do with transliteration. It has to do with what is on various English keyboards. Bgwhite (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't aware of that Bgwhite. Since the ` is just as easily available (left of the 1/! key on a QWERTY layout) as the ' , I thought it would be alright. Also, there is this MOS convention on Arabic transliterations which takes the ease of keyboard input/browser display into account. In contrast, I could not find the specific convention about "Articles are only to have ' in the article and article's title" in the link you provided. Only that it is recommended to consistently use straight apostrophes ('), EXCEPT "Foreign characters that resemble apostrophes, such as transliterated Arabic ayin ( ʿ ) and alif ( ʾ ), are represented by their correct Unicode characters (that is, U+02BF MODIFIER LETTER LEFT HALF RING and U+02BE MODIFIER LETTER RIGHT HALF RING respectively), despite possible display problems. If this is not feasible, use a straight apostrophe instead." And that's the whole issue: Sha`ban has the letter ayin (std transl `) instead of alif (std transl ') Could you please provide a quote for your stated convention, since I can't seem to find it? Thanks. - HyperGaruda (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

You are only thinking of the U.S. QWERTY keyboard and a few others that have `. The link you give is for transliterations only at the beginning of an article. It says nothing about article titles. The very first paragraph quotes, The strict transliteration uses accents, underscores, and underdots, and is only used for etymology in the beginning of the article. As with other MOS pages, there are exception. You will usually see words that contain these in brackets and/or italics. The page you gave even uses ' wikilinks.

All MOS pages say they are, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. This includes the word recommended. We follow unless there is a good reason not to. 99.9% of Arabic articles titles use ' Bgwhite (talk) 09:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not thinking of specifically the US-only, but the US-international keyboard, which I suppose is the most widely used - at least here in the Netherlands it is. In France they use AZERTY, but that one also has a dedicated key for `. Moreover, considering that this is en-wiki, the US(-int'l) and UK keyboards (both with a key for `) are likely to be the guideline standards.

You seem to confuse the three transliteration methods on WP:MOSAR: primary, standard and strict (in order of decreasing preference). I was talking about the standard one, since there is no primary one. About that, the nutshell is quite clear: This page in a nutshell: Arabic words on Wikipedia should use a standard transliteration of Arabic-script languages, with some exceptions. In the transliteration table, the standard convention to render the two different consonants ayin and alif is with ` and ' respectively (as opposed to ‘ and ’ in strict). With regards to article titles I quote: If an Arabic article has no primary transliteration, then the standard transliteration should be used as the article title. And no, ` and ' are no diacritics, since that would mean that they are part of other letters (as in á or è), which they are not. In other words, following MOS-AR and the Ar Naming Conventions requires the use of ` where in Arabic the letter ayin (ع) is written (as is the case in Sha`ban, but not in e.g. Qur'an).

Have you been counting each and every Arabic article title to reach this statistical conclusion of 99.9%? Because `Alya', `DBH, `Abdu'l-Bahá, `Anizzah (and most likely more, but these came up first in the auto search list after typing `) beg to differ.

PS Bgwhite, maybe we should continue this discussion on the MOS-Ar or Ar Naming Convention talk pages. - HyperGaruda (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I asked at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Confusion on differing Arabic apostrophe like symbols. MOS-Ar is not the place as other languages have differing apostrophe like symbols, so this is more of a common problem. I tried to be neutral when asking the question. I specifically asked Meno25 to join. When I have Arabic or Middle East questions, I ask him. He is Egyptian and is an admin on both English and Arabic Wikipedia. I pinged two others in the question as they are both long-time MOS people and have commented about this before on both sides of the argument. Bgwhite (talk) 08:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

==Hanif Islam== section

The guy introduced ==Hanif Islam== section says they are Qur'an Aloners. On the other hand, a Quranist Yaşar Nuri Öztürk admits the validity of nearly 500 hadith. Thus, it is not true that all the Quranists are Qur'an Aloners.

68.100.166.227 (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

True, 68.100.166.227; not all Qur'anists are literally Qur'an-Aloners, but the guy who introduced that section only said: Hanif Islam is a set of Muslim beliefs and teachings based on the Qur'an alone. It does not specifically say that Hanif Islam and Qur'an Alone are synonymous. Just like you mentioned that not all Qur'anists are Qur'an Aloners, it is equally not true that all Qur'an Aloners are Hanif Muslims. - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification, but it's getting too complicated, at the end are these really denominations of Islam? Need to create new pages for Qur'an Aloners and Hanif Muslims?

68.100.166.227 (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I am quite sure that separate articles for those two will not survive the WP:N and WP:V guidelines, so don't try it. Also, I've asked the Islam wikiproject to comment on the inclusion of Hanif Muslims, since I cannot find any reliable source about them. There is a big chance that the Hanif Islam section will be deleted again and so we will not have to deal with this problem anyway. - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Al Fiqh Ash-Shabazz? ? ? Somebody added this to Template:Nation of Islam and later it was deleted from Islamic schools but still stays here Fiqh#Ash-Shabazz_jurisprudence_of_Nation_of_Islam and it is unreferenced.

68.100.166.227 (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, user Lambsbook also tried to add an article about this "school of jurisprudence". It was deleted for advertising and being completely fictional. Clearly any other mention of this fictional fiqh (if unsourced) should be removed as well. - HyperGaruda (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

We should revert Template:Nation of Islam back to its original form since Ash-Shabazz_jurisprudence is undefined..

68.100.166.227 (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Avicenna

Please note that the edit that you reverted now give the following error:

Cite error: Invalid tag; name "Janssens91" defined multiple times with different content
Cite error: Invalid tag; name "Britannica" defined multiple times with different content
Cite error: Invalid tag; name "Britannica" defined multiple times with different content

(after the Section "References")

Best regards,--Raul Corazzon (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Oops Ontoraul, thanks for notifying. I had only checked the main text (which contained the error "Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).") and not the reflist section. My bad! - HyperGaruda (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Do not change other people's comments

In case you didn't see the edit summaries here or here: please do not alter or otherwise violate the integrity of my comments. See WP:TPO. —Ruud 18:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Oops sorry. The first one I didn't notice, seemingly because the diff got lost in subsequent minor edits. - HyperGaruda (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Greetings

You will be reported if you remove it again. Malaylampur (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Last warning

If you remove sourced content again without discussion I will open a COI case against you and the other guy. What it looks like at the moment is your censoring material. Malaylampur (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

How remarkably convenient that you started editing again only 14 hours after the ANI against you was archived. And I am working to prevent Wikipedia from becoming an unsourced hoaxapalooza. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

What did you want me to do? Start a thread on my availability? I simply dont want to talk about my weekday only policy to strangers that will probably never contact me. I didnt edit after it was archived. It was infact you that did. You began reverting right after it was archived to avoid scrutiny sir. Malaylampur (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd wanted you to say "yes/ok/understood/no because..." to the points raised in the other comments in that thread, such as LjL rightly noting that it should not matter where an edit rationale is given; or Nil Einne commenting that it is ok to not immediately react on your talk page, but that you should not delete comments only because it is weekend - you could have just left the comments as they are until you were ready to answer them... By the way, why are you answering comments today? It is Saturday! Clearly not a weekday, while you tell us "please message me on weekdays only". You do hopefully realise that the weekdays are Monday to Friday?

I started editing that article again because I thought: "well, he hasn't replied for so long, so I guess he left Wiki. And since nobody else had objected to MezzoMezzo's, MusenInvincible's and my edits, I assumed people were ok with them." - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I never said I wont respond on weekends. The current thread is my message to you not the other way around. This is a content dispute do not try to swing the topic to another direction. The individuals concerned with my availability can contact me on my talk page and we can find a reasonable solution that will be appropriate. Regarding the current conflict you do not NEED to contact me on my talk page to discuss edits made on an article. Regarding deleting comments I thought that it would appear in my mailbox if I had not done so. BTW you never complained about my weekday policy until another editor brought it up so i find it surprising that you were "waiting" for my reply to address that. As far as the rationale goes I am looking for the policy but regardless you got your reply on the talk now proceed to engage in discussion. Malaylampur (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It was only after you had deleted the ANI notification, that I wanted to complain, but somebody else already had mentioned it and it seemed to be useless to repeat him/her. Besides, I HAD to contact you about the ANI, because those are the rules at WP:ANI (When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.). Tip: there is an option under "preferences" where you can turn off notifications via e-mail. - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Gotcha. I will commit to reviewing how the site works. Once my work schedule clears up. Malaylampur (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Malaylampur: in case there's still some confusion, I was not saying, nor is it likely anyone else was saying you have to check out messages on the weekend. It's fine for you to not check messages on the weekend, provided you don't do stuff on the weekend which would require you to check messages (most editing). The only point is, if you do receive messages on the weekend, you can't completely ignore them just because they didn't fit you schedule. Instead you need to treat these messages as you should any other messages, reading them and taking on board anything they say and replying to them. When you do this is up to you, provided it follows your editing. In other words, not editing and not reading messages on the weekend is absolutely fine. The problems are if you do carry out significant editing on the weekend and ignore all messages. Or if you don't edit on the weekend and don't read messages on the weekend, als also don't ever read those messages because they were sent on the weekend. Nil Einne (talk) 06:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Ok thanks for clearing things up. Malaylampur (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Previous trolling

I just now logged in after a Wikibreak and I have to say, the behavior of MalayLumpur was beyond ridiculous. I've been editing for a number of years and it's rare to see such flagrant violations of site policies on edit warring and personal attacks; I'm honestly surprised a block wasn't put into place.
That being said, the guy apparently indicated that he'll try to learn how the site actually works out...I'm sorry you had to weather the brief storm on your own and I should be logging in more regularly now. You handled a series of really unacceptable abuse quite well. Hopefully the fellow has cooled off and is ready to move on constructively; if not, I'm just informing you and User:Nil Einne that I should be back to editing regularly now; if MalayLumpur wants to play ball by the rules, then that's awesome, but if we see a repeat of the same behavior I'll escalate this again and simply seek a block. Neither of you guys need to be involved in that if you've had enough, but I'm just mentioning that here for future reference - the situation calls for some monitoring. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You are the only troll here. Stay off wikipedia if you continue to act like a clown. You were logged in but chose to ignore me. Malaylampur (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Content Dispute, Please take a look

Hello HyperGaruda,

Your neutral opinion on the content dispute currently on-going at Hadith and Criticism of Hadith will be appreciated. The discussion thread is at: Talk:Hadith#Recent_cleanup_of_huge_chunks. The main issue is the material sourced from Wael Hallaq's paper, sourced from JSTOR, but is also available at: http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/islam/fiqh/hallaq_hadith.html

Thanks. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 15:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)