User:Mystìc/Archive2

Changing username

Dear Mystic,

I think it can be done, but it's admin magic, and I'm not an admin. Is there someone you know to be an admin who could do it for you? Zora 20:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Changing username

Hello. Only bureaucrats can change user names. You will have to follow the process at Wikipedia:Changing username. Pepsidrinka 16:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam

Dear Arasth,

We are both on one side of the article. I hate to dispute with Muslim editors, which I consider my brothers in faith, in the first place. I am afraid your edits makes the article unstable again. I think it was better to have the section there till we arrive at a consensus. It was not obvious for me to add the sentence "Moreover, some Muslim cite scholars such as Maurice Bucaille and Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, who claim that the Qur'an contains numerous scientific facts which were not known until recent times, to respond to the assertion that the Qur'an was reflects the scientific understanding of 7th century Arabia rather than divine inspiration" to the article.

Now, I am afraid if you remove this section, some other editor later re-adds this section to the article. Then we will have a hard time adding back this sentence again. Can you please revert your edits back while we are discussing the matter on the talk page?

As for criticism of christianity article, we can discuss about it as well. THANKS --Aminz 22:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Aminz, sorry for the delay in replying, after much thought I think including that section ("Scientific Criticism of Quran") while things are being discussed is not gonna do any good to the reader as the information there is "Blatant POV". As such many readers will be mislead. What we need to persue here is NPOV. Shall we include the section in the talk page for discussion. Mystic 12:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Arsath, why? of course it is POV(and maybe Blatant POV) but the article of criticism of islam should contain anti-islamic POV's. --Aminz 08:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the section you have made should be added to criticism of Bible. Shouldn't it? --Aminz 08:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hagiography

The second part of the Muhammad article is based on Islamic traditions, but it is NOT the full hagiographic treatment of Muhammad. It includes what the academic historians who are willing to use the Islamic traditions are willing to accept as plausible. This does not include everything that Muslims believe. Frex, Ibn Ishaq has a story about an army trying to invade Mecca and being driven back by flocks of birds dropping pebbles on them. Do academic historians accept this? No. They do not accept stories of divine intervention. Nor do they accept stories, written hundreds of years after the fact, about how everyone adored Muhammad, his face shone, this and that miracle happened ...

Watt is the most credulous of academic historians and I would be willing to put anything he accepts into the second part. I think Timothy would too. That way the article has two sections, one sceptical, one fairly trusting.

For the stories that the academics do not accept, there is the Islam and veneration for Muhammad article. That article needs lots of work and in particular, it needs to have all the familiar Muslim stories about Muhammad added. If you could do that, that would be a great help. That article is linked from the main Muhammad page, so anyone who wants to know what Muslims think can go to it. Do consider working on that page, rather than putting your beliefs into the main article. Zora 11:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zora, Thanks for your comments, I hope you are not accusing me of putting my own beliefs in the main article by saying "rather than putting your beliefs into the main article", (I assume good faith). I have given scholarly reference for you to consider. «₪Mÿš†íc₪» 12:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mystic,

Thanks for your consideration. All is fine.Timothy Usher 06:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Qur'an templates

Here is something for you,

^{[Quran 009:010]}

009:010

^{[Quran 009:010]}

009:010-015

Now we have four display options for Qur'anic cites.Timothy Usher 18:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Four templates? That's completely unnecessary. joturner 21:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not. The standard first template cannot do two things: 1) drop the word "Qur'an" where it's already been stated, or where multiple verses are being cited in one sentence. We don't wish every other word to be Qur'an - in blue no less. I discovered this problem when I went around adding the original template to various articles. 2) Cannot cite a range, except as follows: ^{[Quran 009:010]}-15, which is ugly as sin. However, please let me know if you've a solution to these problems (as with the ugly zeros) within one template - of course we'd prefer just one were it possible.

Alternately, we may wish to drop Quran-usc and Quran-usc-range in favor of the num versions - at least that way, we could manually include Qur'an, or not, and only require two templates.Timothy Usher 00:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Buhari Template

Check this out.. Sahih al-Bukhari, 076:08:422

Suggestions welcome!! «₪Mÿš†íc₪» 21:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to figure out what you wanted me to look at, but then I realized it was the template. The template doesn't work perfectly since all numbers must have three digits (I think {{Buhari|076|008|422}}, not {{Buhari|076|08|422}}) was what you were going for. If possible, it would be nice to have it fill in those leading zeros if the editor doesn't put them in. In addition, it seems like it should be volume|book|number, not book|volume|number as you currently have it. Lastly, I would be great to have it say Sahih Bukhari - Volume 8, Book 76, Number 422 instead of the current Buhari Book 076 Vol 08 Hadith 422. Lastly, unless there is a transliteration I'm unaware of, the template needs to be moved to Bukhari. Feel free to reply with a {{sofixit}} if that is what you want. joturner 21:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You're having the same problem I was having - I can't figure out how to get the right Hadith to display, only the book and volume (it always goes to the top). Not that it's not still useful, it's just that I know there's a way to call them up individually because I've seen it done. Just can't remember the syntax.

joturner, your suggestion is on the mark, but neither Tom harrison nor I could figure out how to pad the input numbers with zeros as you suggest (or eliminate zeros from the display). If you know a way, we can apply it to all four Qur'an templates (I created three more last night).

It's Bukhari, naturally.Timothy Usher 21:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I took care of the number issue. I created a template called {{three digit}}. Look at the template talk for how to use it, but it's quite simple. Just do {{three digit|number}}. joturner 00:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good! Thank you for making the templete. It would be good if we could have different display options. thx. --Aminz 01:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Arsath, if you want your own template, I'm sorry for the redirect. Feel free to undo it and create your own. But as with Quran, we can't have the only template displaying every word in the full formal description. For one, do we really want all these words in bluelight? This full description is impractical, as joturner and I now agree.Timothy Usher 07:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

We're on the same page!

I see you've copied the Usher-Turner text (okay, Turner-Usher) and applied it to the others...fantastic. Now we have all these templates.

Nomenclature: right now, the ones without the text are called "-usc" after a legacy issue. USC is the source, Tom harrison called his Quran-usc, and I followed that. You made your own, so just said Buharo. which is fine. However, now we have a situation where full text display versions are distinguished by not having "-usc". That's not right. We have some other sources, too, and this nomenclature should similarly be changed to Quran-source, etc. The full-text versions of USC should, I think, be designated "-usc-text" or "-usc-full", not zero..Timothy Usher 09:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Copying and pasting doesn't work as the others dont follow the same convention as Bukhari, I've created a Template:Four digit to facilitate the others .i.e Abu Dawud and Muslim if you noticed. Nomenclature shouldn't be a big issue, I like the current naming, as far as I know USC is the De Facto reference and the most reliable. If we change it according to your suggestion wouldn't it be too long? I mean remembering to type it properly would be hectic on the editor. May be we should consider giving the user the option of having both .i.e "-usc-text" or "-usc-full" or just Bukhari or Muslim without the attribution of the source or style. Your comments are welcome. «₪Mÿš†íc₪» 09:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did notice the four-digit template. Good work.Timothy Usher 05:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad

Mystic, thanks for the templates. I know that helping neighbors is HIGHLY recommended by Muhammad. For example, in the last will of Ali ibn Abi Talib we read ( http://www.al-islam.org/masoom/writings/imamalilastwill.html)

Fear Allah in your relations with your neighbors. Your Prophet often recommended them to you, so much so that we thought he would give them a share in inheritance.

I know helping neighbors was practiced and highly recommended by Muhammad and his companions. There are LOTS of Hadiths biding helping neighbors. But in order to avoid controversy, let's just mention the title of "Al-Amin". We have a Muslim background but others don’t have. Let’s compromise. --Aminz 09:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

kay Amin go ahead and do the needful. «₪Mÿš†íc₪» 09:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Template:Bukhari?

This comment was left on User talk:Arsath. I have removed it and placed it here as I suspect it was intended. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi; Timothy Usher tells me Template:Bukhari has been superceded. Shall I delete it, or would you like to keep it for future use? Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

template

I like the Muwatta template! --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Mystic! Sorry I'd not gotten back to you before...you might have noticed I've been dealing with some other things, here and in real space.Timothy Usher 04:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Mystic for the template. Take care, --Aminz 09:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sig

I've responded in my talk page... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 13:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom votes

Mystic, you can't "vote" on that Arbcom page. That's only for the arbitrator's decisions. Better revert yourself before thoe guys get angry at you. Lukas ^(T.|@) 19:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll delete that. Charles Matthews 20:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Help

Hi Joturner, Could you help me learn some programming stuff in wikipedia. Where could I find help for this? I want to learn the expression language you used in Template:Three digit in detail. Thanks.  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 08:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. There's one page on qif conditionals (which I did not use in {{three digit}}) and then there's another page on Parser Functions (which I did use in {{three digit}}). Essentially what the statement in {{three digit}} does is check to see if the initial condition and then, if it is true, execute the first statement or otherwise execute the second statement. {{1}} is the first parameter of the template (in {{three digit|570}}, 570 would be {{1}} while in {{three digit|570|69}}, 69 wold be {{2}}). The #ifexpr: checks to see whether {{1}} is greater than 99.5. If that is the case it executes the first statement, {{{1}}} which is printing out the first parameter (the number). If that is not the case and the expression is false, it goes to the second statement, another embedded #ifexpr: ({{ #ifexpr: ({{{1}}} > 9.5) | 0{{{1}}} | 00{{{1}}} }}). Once again, if the first parameter is greater than 9.5, it executes the first statement (printing out a zero followed by the first parameter). If the first parameter is not greater than 9.5, it executes the second statement (printing out two zeros followed by the first parameter). There are more functions you can learn about on the Parser Functions page. joturner 14:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:SMocking.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:SMocking.gif. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record Its tagged now  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 20:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Smiley Template

WONDERFUL!!!!!!!!!! THANKS! --Aminz 20:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, we need to have much more icons. --Aminz 04:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the additions; but what is #8 'you are nive' - should that be Nice or Naive? & I know it's asking a lot, but is there the possibility of a bug-eyed 'Oops/EEEK!' smiley? Cheers. Bridesmill 12:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It should be Naive..Please correct if you see anything wrong.. Tell me the yahoo text for the smiley you want I will try to create it for you..  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 13:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the Kindness Campaign!

Just my way of saying thanks to newcomers to the Kindness Campaign... a delicious home-baked chocolate chip cookie! Yum. :D  ♥ Kylu  (talk • contribs • email • logs • count)

Glad to have you aboard! ~Kylu (u|t) 08:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

== I am tired ==

First of all, I initiated the copivio. Second, just by copy-pasting the article into geocities does not make you the owner of the article. I sent an email to the web-page where the article was originally posted, and I got no reply. I can not say that you did not write the article, all I can say is that I am amazingly sceptic about this. And I have no clue why this is so important for you. In fact, if you had really written it, you would have simply put up a notice at bottom of the original webpage, in a moment's notice. You did not do it ,and in general, you have been acting childishly about all of this. And to top it all, I don't care. Do what you want. Just don't think you outsmarted me. Msoos 20:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Again I didn't want to outsmart anyone, if you felt that way I am really sorry

, Its important to me because its my alma matter . The same article could be found at www.azzahira.com as well; See I contributed to this website long time back, Now the administrator of the website is someone else. The angelfire website is not mine, I am sure some pupil of the college copied it from the original website and posted it there. Derek Ross told me to include the GFDL, I didn't know about this till he told me. The next moment he told me I put the notice there. Thanks.  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 00:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Error

There's an error on your smiley template page! EEK! I left a comment on talk.216.37.227.202 23:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The error is normal, it works fine..  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 05:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Islam Template

Mystic, thanks for your updates on the smileys+ for creating the beautiful Islam Template! Best of Luck on your exams too --Aminz 07:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Please help

Hi Mystìc,

This anon at the Sri Lanka page keeps removing the Sinhala name for it [1], claiming that it's incorrect. Could you please check out the discussion page at Talk:Sri Lanka and fix the spelling if it really is wrong? Thanks. —Khoikhoi 00:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I have a feeling that they're going to remove it again, could you please keep an eye on the page? Thanks again. —Khoikhoi 01:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

See his reply here. —Khoikhoi 04:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure I will watch the article.. I think the IP users argument was correct, I didn't realize it until I saw the image.. Anyway I have included the correct Sinhala script now it shouldn't be a problem to anyone..  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 14:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

thank you

salam

thank you for your help. God saves you.--Sa.vakilian 02:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Islam

Please be truthful and honorable in your comments and refrain from making such types of statements as: I'm putting my new template into place due to consensus to do so, when such is not true. Netscott 16:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have answered this on the Template_Talk:Islam

سلام علیکم

I use your photo "shahada.gif" in persian WP [2]

--Sa.vakilian 17:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)وفقک الله

Thanks for the note. I've made some comments on the talk page. Try and take it easy though, the person who suffers most if you get angry is you after all, going around in a rage all day, and it's really not worth it! Take care, Palmiro | Talk 14:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I think it might be a good idea if you reviewed Wikipedia:Consensus. I think a lot of needless heat is generated by your assumption that a simple majority (or plurality) is "consensus". The Wikipedia definition is more complex than that and is best judged carefully. Changing the image on the template is obviously a controversial move; trying to force the issue by vote counting or repeated edits is not likely to advance your point of view, even if you're right. — squell 12:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Islam

The facts are that the majority of the editors that has commented on the talkpage, do not support a change from the previous image on the template, which was choosen after long and difficult discussions. So there is no way that you can claim that there is a concensus for a change to the image that you created, and the editors that has opposed the change has mentioned reasonable concerns about such a change, and surely there is not reason, or excuse, for you to attack these editors and accuse them of being unreasonable and acting in bad faith. I strongly suggest that you stop insisting on having your image on the template, and just accept the fact that there is no concensus for such a change. If you are interested in the my specific reasons for strongly opposing such a change, then read my comment regarding this on the talkpage. I have already made my position and concerns regarding this. -- Karl Meier 18:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

smiley templates

salam. I saw your smiley templates in Amins talk page and I want to thank you for this innovation. I advise you try to put your symbol of Shahada in Arabic Wikipedia.If they refused to use your art in English W.P., we use it in Persian W.P. and I think Arabs will accept it easily.

I have a question too. My friends debate about Zora and someone would like to nominate Zora to be an administrator. What is your idea?--Sa.vakilian 19:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

salam. I think users in English wiki aren't familiar with "Islimic Arts", and they can't read and enjoy it. I voted there before . But I think it's better to focus on Arabic Wiki. I can introduce sime them to you, If you want. can read Arabic?

God saves you.--Sa.vakilian 04:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Sinhala script

Hey Mystic, you seem to be the person to ask abot rendering Sinhala letters in WP. Can you help me? Thanks a lot, Krankman 23:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Islam

Maybe it's time to stop, after all? There is no consensus for changing the template in favor your image, even if it's highly elaborate in terms of graphics and I understand that you like it. So, please do not continue the edit war. Pecher ^Talk 08:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I mean what I say. I've read the talk page, and I commented on it some time ago, so please stop. Pecher ^Talk 08:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I can count 3 people online now who do not agree with you, so it definitely does not look like a consensus in favor of your version. Edit warring on template is highly disruptive, as readers on many pages see first one template than another. This edit war undermines the quality of Wikipedia and people's trust in it; therefore I'm asking you for the third time to relent. Pecher ^Talk 08:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

As Netscott has pointed out on talk, most people 'are not in favor of changing the template, and in any case 10/9/2 is not a consensus. Pecher ^Talk 08:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Concur.Timothy Usher 08:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Mystìc, if you have an English dictionary at your home, I would advise you to look up the word "consensus" (or just use an online Dictionary that you trust) to fully comprehend what that word means. Also, I'm not sure why you are disrespecting me by referring to me as "Mr. Cotta Soma" (which I hate to admit I'm inclined to think may be an insult in another language) but I would kindly request you refer to me as Scott or Netscott. Thanks. Netscott 09:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Netscott

, dont take it so seriously buddy, its just an annoying yet sweet cartoon character in my counry (its human of course -- like denice the menace)..

Could you all tell me what exactly is consensus.. actually I dont have an English dictionary at home..

I had a clear idea about consesus earlier.. But you guys came and confused me completely, the wikitionary says one thing, wikipedia policy says another thing.. And people in the Template:Islam talk page had been giving some or other reason (or definition to consensus) every time I assumed that I have consensus. So could all of you who oppose the image change get together and reach consensus as to what is consensus and post it on my talk page, so I can have it for the record b4 I change the image again.. otherwise till you people reach consensus as to what is consensus I will have my image?

Is the word shit taboo? (i dont know, my english skills are not that good, you guys have been my teachers) Because sometimes I see some people do a lot of Bull Shit in wikipedia just to divert from the fact.. I dont know whether I am caught to bullshiters.. Please tell me..If I am..(remove this if its taboo!!)

 «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 09:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

"Annoying yet sweet"? Seriously that is disrespectful and borderline qualifying as a personal attack. Please refrain my addressing me in such a way as it is anything but demonstrative of good faith. The reality is that in terms of making the change you want to make the only real Wikipedia guideline that needs to be followed is Wikipedia:Consensus, but you should still learn what the actual word consensus means and understand that you should at least have a general consensus to support your template change. Netscott 09:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Netty, It was actually meant to be a loving statement.. You took it in the wrong way.. here after I will try to use your correct name.  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 10:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Netty? With such continued demonstrations of disrespect you'll never hope to achieve consensus. While you learn about what the word consensus means I recommend you brush up on this policy as well. Netscott 10:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh God,

I am so sorry you again took it in the wrong way.. As I said I will call you, Nettyscott Nettscott hereafter.. I think you are continuesly failing to assume good faith.. It all depends on how people want to interpret the policy isn't it.. I think its the same case with the consensus issue..  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 12:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam

That you believe that there are many hadith that show that Ali Sina is wrong isn't an excuse for you to censor the fact that he has made this criticism against Islam. -- Karl Meier 20:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)