User talk:Arrow740

/Archive 1

I'm not knowledgeable about Sikhism, and I'm wondering what exactly it is that intrigues you about this faith. What elements of Sikhism seems attractive over Buddhism (apparently, your current faith)? I've never taken interest in any of the Dharmic faiths, although my own father raised me on Buddhist-Taoist concepts (which, oddly, eventually led me to Christianity). I'm interested to hear your reasons. --C.Logan 11:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Sounds like very similar to the reasons I chose Eastern Christianity over Western, sans reincarnation (theosis, single point of consciousness, etc.). I'd always been curious about the Sikhs, as they have a temple (or whatever they may call it) within walking distance from my house. Sadly, the faith was largely passed over in my Theology classes... Anyway, I'm glad to help in any way I can. I hate to generalize, but it seems that the vast majority of Muslim contributors are new users with a shallow grasp of English and a mission to eliminate or soften any criticism of Islam. Not that there aren't many helpful Muslim contributors (although they can be bullies at times, from what I've seen). Hopefully everyone will one day be able to work together peacefully in the halls of Wiki.--C.Logan 23:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't feel like creating a new heading... anyway, thanks for the guiding light. I don't know if it's so necessary now- I'll wait to see if Khorshid flares up again.--C.Logan 08:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sikhism and Buddhism have their roots in something called Sanatan Dharma, literally transliterates from Sanskrit to "Ideal & sincere practice of faith"

Both Buddhism and Sikhism have followed different trajectories or tangents, today Sikhism is more a ethnocentric or Punjabi based religion with emphasis on Punjabi culture, politics and over emphasis on identity in comparison to other faiths especially Hinduism followed by Islam.

While Buddhism has a greater appeal in the West than Sikhism, Sikhism tends to draw a more fanatical crowd, witness Behzti

Much of this recent socio religious research has been done by Professor Harjot Oberoi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.59.135 (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I enabled my email now, look forward to talking to you. --Matt57 13:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Houri, you will be blocked from editing.

Stop changing primary source. Primary sources erasing is vandalism.

No it isn't, if you're misusing/personally drawing conclusions from this source and expressing them in the article. I'm not fully aware of the circumstances, but I do know that you should refrain from using primary sources whenever possible. Secondary sources are almost always preferable to Primary sources when adding material to Wikipedia. --C.Logan 02:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Houri when you deleted citations without discussion, you will be blocked from editing. Thank you.(Studentoftruth 23:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Please address my points in this section. [1] --Aminz 04:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your involvement in the neglected article. I've been trying to bring it up to GA class and did not have to deal with any POV pushers but I think that is about to change. Tigeroo's intentions seem to want to favor a particular religion.

You'll see that he blanked material from Daniel Pipes, the Mahabodhi Society and the very well respected B. R. Ambedkar.

I would appreciate it if you watchlisted the article for any blanking of material or such activity. Regards, Phillip Rosenthal 21:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I am trying to understand their position, so bear with me. Suppose I am a reader and am interested in learning about the Islamic Jurisprudence. If all the material that is critical of Islamic Jurisprudence is shunted off to another article "Criticism of Islamic Jurisprudence", then I would hardly get a balanced view of Islamic Jurisprudence. Or think about an article about Hitler. Should all the material critical about Hitler be shunted off to another article "Criticism of Hitler" and only positive assessments of Hitler remain in the article? Or is there a special standard for articles on Islam? Thanks, NN 05:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arrow,

Regarding the quote you provided before: "Islamic law provided a powerful and highly articulated paradigm for slavery, manumission, and clientage. This paradigm, however, is fraught with tensions and ambiguities. The slave is both person and property. The natural condition of human beings is freedom but enslavement is sanctioned by God as punishment for unbelief"

Can you please quote a few more sentences. it is not clear to me what "is sanctioned by God as punishment for unbelief" means. Thanks --Aminz 04:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Aminz 05:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words, and for your interest. It encourages me for more editing and expansion in the History of Buddhism in India article.
Phillip Rosenthal 16:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arrow. Back on 17 March you added to the Bat Ye'or article a view on the writer's work that you attributed to a book by Joel Beinin. An editor has reverted it on the grounds that the book does not contain any such opinion. (And in fact it would not be expected that Beinin would offer blanket praise of Bat Ye'or's work, since they take very different views about the interpretation of the history of the Jews in Egypt). I wondered whether you would like to explain your edit? Thanks. Itsmejudith 10:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page. Arrow740 16:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arrow. You probably got this, but just in case you missed it; that fact tag actually came from the previous editor.[2]. I suspect it was an attempt to sneak that pic in without mentioning it - ie, he added the tag and mentioned it in the edit sum, but did not mention adding the pic. kind regards --Merbabu 01:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re your question why take this out? "The denial of spirituality to contingent things, in particular, is a denial of any real essence to these things in themselves, and, thus forms the basis of the more sweeping 'sunyavada' doctrine which in the Mahayana denies not any "value" but any essence to even the Buddha's appearance and to the promulgation of the Dhamma itself." Sorry, but it makes absolutely no sense to me. What do you mean with "denial of spirituality to contingent things"? Mahayana philosophy of shunyata is not about the spirituality of things, but on whether things exist alltogether. rudy 20:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need to define what you mean with 'essence' - I'm not sure how familiar you are with Buddhism of the philosophical ins and outs of shunyata, but 'just rewording' is usually quite a bit more complex then people think... There arose dozens of schools over history with many smart people trying to define what exactly is meant with emptiness. :-) rudy 20:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the word itaq exactly? Is it a command? Thanks, Arrow740 07:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It means "to fear". It is a verb. It can be a grammatical mood or any other linguistic modality. It also means "to listen". -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a disagreement going on at the List of converts to Christianity page. A user removed Bob Dylan from the list, under the reasoning that the source was either biased or did not support the article's content. So, I continued to find other sources which supported the fact the Bob Dylan had at least embraced Christianity for a short time, many years ago. User: Bus stop has repeatedly removed Dylan's listing for the same reason previously stated. Currently, it has reached the point where 9 sources are still insufficient in this user's eyes (even one hosted on Bobdylan.com, if that lends any more weight to it's content). I've found a 10th source from a Jewish site (as bias cannot be claimed), and it essentially confirms the other sources. I go into great deal regarding the content of these sources on the talk page. I'd welcome your opinion of the sources. This should be noted... he's left direct comments on the page as if he's never heard of a talk page. I don't get it. The sources are hardly ambiguous, especially with direct quotes from Dylan in some. I suppose the user will not be satisfied unless a source has Dylan saying, "Yes, I converted to Christianity, and I really believed in it." --C.Logan 02:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I forgot to sign earlier, this website helps exploring the Quran, it will certainly help clear your certain doubts about the Quran please take a look at it. I am not going post the link again as you already know it. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^{Peace Talks} 04:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Arrow740 04:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or just hear Syed Abulala Maududi's Tafsir called Tafheem-ul-Quran from [3]. Please do not hear it from middle. Start hearing it from beginning and keep hearing. For me that is cool experience. I like Maududi because he is not an apologist and try to present thing the way they are. --- ALM 14:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to watch this user, and maybe report him/her. On his talk page, he has deleted all his previous vandalism warnings, hoping nobody would notice.--Sefringle 07:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Houri. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing.. → Aktar ^{(talk • contribs)} — 09:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned previously, let's discuss the issues in the Talk page and once a consensus is reached, changing it over is a simple task. → Aktar ^{(talk • contribs)} — 09:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in response to your edit summary here, i think you are quite aware that the translation, its meaning and context has been disputed. ITAQALLAH 18:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Itaqallah, "disputed"? That was a dispute from a user who misled people by replacing the word Kiss with the innocent "play". How can you trust her translation when she purposely mistranslated atleast once? Arrow, we do need a good translation though. I suggest getting help from the Persian helpdesk or something. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if you think she mistranslated, why don't you consult her and request clarification, instead of showing a lack of good faith? ITAQALLAH 19:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not necessrily bad faith. Either it was done on purpose, or she doesnt know what she's doing. Either way, ofcoruse she cannot be trusted with the translation and she has proved it. You are knowingly supporting her. I will take this to task myself. We'll consult the persian helpdesk. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

whatever false dichomoties you establish aren't really of interest. you're just lashing out at someone without bothering to bring their attention to your concern. ITAQALLAH 22:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need a reliable source for translation since it is disputed. --Aminz 22:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, it is giving undue weight to one scholar who itself is in a minority(shiasm). --Aminz 22:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is not going to work. Arrow740 22:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you hace an opinion on this?--Sefringle 01:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be deleted. It has not developed much since it creation and have only one section written well. I suggest we keep one section in new article named Embryology In Quran and delete rest of the article. What you suggest? --- A. L. M. 17:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove source material. The article says that according to critics:"Islamic extremist terrorism is true islam" and that's a response to it. --Aminz 21:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Actually, I'm disinclined to get too embroiled in the "Buddha as Avatar" article -- I spent a lot of time on it once but it's too much hard work trying to arrive at a consensus. You might like to look back at the earlier part of the relevent talk pages. Also, I hope you are not too miffed by my comments regarding your edits to the Buddhism article. It is unfortunate, but unless one reads some of the original canonical languages, one is at the mercy of other translators and scholars of Mahayana and their view is often quite skewed to fit their apparent preconceptions of what Mahayana ought to be. There are a vast number of Mahayana sutras etc that have never been translated, let alone even read. I am trying to remedy this in the real world outside Wiki with a number of forth-coming translations of key TG Mahayana texts which reveal something very different to the popular strawman set up by some.--Stephen Hodge 22:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow740, please see the meaning of the word in context, and the general reaction of Dharmic religions to this concept, which is different from just embracing the ideas and teachings of a religion. For starters, please read what Buddhist leaders say about it [4] [5]. "Conversion" means a very specific thing, and embracement of the teachings of Buddha by the ancient people does not fit this definition. deeptrivia (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to remind you to relax re: your edit summary here. Take it easy fellow =).--0rrAvenger 03:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You had reverted my edits on the Islam and Children article, as per policy just saying (rv) on your edit summary is not enough, when you revert again consider giving a proper explanation for your revert. If you continue to revert without an explanation, I am sorry to say that I'll have to report you to WP:ANI.

The section that I removed, I gave a good explanation, please see Exceptional claims require exceptional sources.ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^{Peace Talks} 09:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but being gay doesn't disqualify a translator published by a reputable publishing house from being a reliable source. These issues are long-standing, don't waste my time. Arrow740 19:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the issue is indeed long-standing. homa.org is not a reliable source, and neither is Darabi. ITAQALLAH 06:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This diff is blatant hiding of the truth and it says a lot. The translation you are referring to was confirmed by Muslim wikipedians, including one we all respect in Faysal. The removal of the thighing quote doesn't even have a pretext. Arrow740 07:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the translation wasn't 'confirmed', as the translations offered on the talk page differed with the one defended in the article to varying degrees. the thighing quote may deserve to stay for now, as ProtectWomen apparently confirms that she a) possesses the publication and/or b) obtained the quote upon consulting that publication, instead of, say, finding it on the internet. i will, however, try to find out more about this obscure book. ITAQALLAH 18:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow- I posted an unprotect request for Islam and children [6]. Just thought you should know because I mentioned your name. Also, Netmonger is watching this page (and my talk page), so he will see this notice as well. --ProtectWomen 06:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the barnstar. - Merzbow 07:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:SiddhartaBirth.JPG

Thanks for all your hard work on the Buddhism articles. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in this summary you assert that Malik is 'much more than a neurobiologist'. i think you know quite well that he doesn't need a qualification in "Islamophobia" to be considered a reliable source here, so we can do away with that straw man. what should be required, if he is to be cited in the lead on par with real academic authorities, would be some sort of verifiable expertise in contemporary sociology or a related subject. his wiki article doesn't postulate anything of real substance in that regard. as you can agree that Mr. Hasan and other non-authorities should be excised, we should apply WP:RS uniformly and remove those who are discussing out of their league. ITAQALLAH 13:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on my talk page. Calliopejen1 09:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I discovered that and self reverted even before reading your message. Sorry about that. 20:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the barnstar, which I did little to deserve. I regret that I have not been of more help. I wish we could do more to build teamwork on some of these complex articles. Buddhipriya 06:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

response on my talk. also, please discuss the issue of Sina at Talk:Zakir Naik#Zakir Naik as a showman. you are on your third revert, as you know. ITAQALLAH 20:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "this is excessive"? Kenan Malik's view is thoroughly fleshed out in the article. The responses to him should be equally elaborate, no more and no less. See WP:NPOV. Inayet Bunglawala's main point was that Malik wrongly uses violence as a measure of islamophobia, ignoring other forms of prejudice. Whomever made reference to his view left all of that out. Xiao t 15:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware of the three revert rule, according to which you cannot revert 4 times in a 24 period on any one particular article. Arrow740 20:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing BLP violations do not count toward the 3RR rule. Ibn Shah 03:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Ibn Shah was blocked as a sock puppet of His Excellency. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is their a Wikipedia policy against stalking?--Kitrus 07:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See WP:STALK. --BozMo talk 09:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thanks for your concern about the article on notable converts to Islam. I disagree with your recent edit - if you check the article on the person in question, you'll see that the issue of his association with terror and support of it is not only unproven but also disputed. Ideally, an encyclopedia should not take either side - we must provide information to the public, but to make said unproven accusation the basis of his summary on the notable converts page is a bit innapropriate. Also, please refrain from accusations of censorship based simply on differences in opinion - it's hurtful and not conducive to a good working relationship with other editors. I look forward to hearing from you in the future MezzoMezzo 02:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a bit on the discussion page for the article. I hope you've seen it. I'm still interested in hearing your thoughts. MezzoMezzo 14:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I invite you to join the talk page on Battle of Khaybar. I would like to hear what you have to say about the sources I've presented.Bless sins 02:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again Arrow740, could you please join the talk page. It seems that you're the only one reverting. Regarding Proabivouac's comments, I have responded to him, though he/she doesn't seem to have respondedback. There are alse newer commetns on the talk. Thus, please respond back on the talk page.Bless sins 12:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see your comment.Bless sins 12:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment, and all you said is that Nomani is a "bad source". Can you explain yourself? What about all the reliable soures that call him "a historian" and confirm that he was a professor?Bless sins 12:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bless sins, this has been addressed at length on talk. Additionally, you continue to restore material cited to a work which begins as follows:

Beyond a shadow of doubt, the biography of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) manifestedly represents an exhaustive embodiment of the sublime Divine Message that he communicated in order to deliver the human race from the swamp of darkness and polytheism to the paradise of light and monotheism."[7]

There is the sober and reasoned tone of your reliable source.Proabivouac 16:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Islamophobia, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. -- Karl Meier 22:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Islamophobia#Parties.27_agreement_to_Messedrocker.27s_offer. ITAQALLAH 14:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the impetus of your edit to Yoga. But it is problematic to delete a quote from a Buddhist book, which describes the quest for the Divine, and to explain your delete by saying: "There is no Divine in Buddhism". Clearly there is, at least in some forms, and some of the forms are rather popular. It's as much as to delete a passage about the Christian belief in creationism, and to say "Christians don't believe in Creationism." Many don't, it's true, but many more do.

This delete, I believe, deserves more explanation on the talk page. I am restoring, and invite you discuss it there.--Nemonoman 02:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only two contributions so far though. Could just be a "forgot to log in"? --BozMo talk 08:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Let me know it if recurs (with a list of the IPs or articles if possible) --BozMo talk 09:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your last edit comment was "one more". If there is one more let me know. I won't be away for more than an hour or two. --BozMo talk 09:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just got there. Looks fixed already? --BozMo talk 20:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Islamophobia. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Hi Arrow,

I was hoping you wouldn't mind if I shared some thoughts with you regarding your recent edit to the Buddhist meditation article. In essence, you made two changes:

1. You changed a sentence to read: "Buddhists pursue meditation as part of the path toward Enlightenment and Nirvana" (changing the prior words "to achieve" to "as part of the path toward").
2. You added the sentence: "Meditative prowess is not sufficient, however; it is a purely Buddhist idea that ethics also leads to and is also necessary for the attainment of insight" (along with a citation).

Let me start by saying that, over all, I don't disagree with the content of you changes. I suspect you and I share a great deal on this point at which others might bristle. I sense (and perhaps I am projecting my own past experiences on to this) that you might be trying to respond to some contemporary popularizations of Buddhism that suggest that meditation is everything and one doesn't have to worry about ethics or even Right Effort, Right Understanding and Right Intent. If so, I agree that it is beneficial, for the sake of the Buddha Dhamma if nothing else, to help others see the relationship of virtue to mind development and wisdom.

As an aside, the only suggestion I really have about the first above-identified change is to perhaps wiki-pipe the word path to Noble Eightfold Path.

Regarding the second change, I have a couple of caveats:

1. With the exception of the sentence which states, "The closest words for meditation in the classical languages of Buddhism are bhāvanā and jhāna (Pāli; Skt.: dhyāna)," every other sentence in the introduction attempts to summarize a point elaborated upon in the article's actual text. (Okay, maybe the phrase "and have proliferated and diversified through the millennia of teacher-student transmissions" is another exception although the point of this phrase is to explain why there are thousands of extant meditation practices.) The issue your second change mentions (about ethics, etc.) is critical but it is at best only alluded in the existing article in the section "From the Pali literature" where specific Path factors are mentioned.
2. Are you sure that it is "a purely Buddhist idea that ethics also leads to ... insight"?
3. The start of the paragraph you changed is not simply about "insight" (e.g., vipassana) but about Enlightenment and Nirvana.

I guess my reason for concern (for spending time on this) about the secnod change is twofold:

1. In terms of pure editorial aesthetics, the point does not summarize points elaborated upon in the core article or provide typical introductory material (as the translated words do) or overall context (as does the point about millennia-old transmission).
2. I believe that most non-Buddhist WP readers would find the additional statement to be overly complex, relatively tangential and somewhat argumentative and it thus might put them off from going further in the article.
3. I suspect that some Buddhist practitioners might find the added statements contentious and this could lead to a string of difficult revisions that would make the introduction unwieldy, etc.

Given all this, I'd like to suggest a couple of alternatives:

1. Simply take the second above-identified change and move the whole sentence to an end note (since it is already alluded to by the first change about "part of the path").
2. Or, move the sentence to an appropriate part of the main text.
3. Or, remove the current sentence but create a "side-box" (or whatever it's called) that talks about meditation within the overall Buddhist path (like the side-box in the Skandha article entitled, "Example of Aggregate-Clinging").

Frankly, I kind of like the third option best -- it would kind of highlight the issue but at the same time contain it so that those who are disclined to read it more fully can more readily gloss it.

If you have the time, what are your thoughts about this? Thanks, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<font=3>Meditation on the Buddhist Path Most Buddhist traditions recognize that the path to Enlightenment entails three types of training: virtue (sīla); meditation (citta); and, wisdom (paññā). Thus, meditative prowess alone is not sufficient; it is but one part of the path. In other words, in Buddhism, ethical development and wise understanding are also necessary for the attainment of the highest goal.

Okay. Thanks for the open and thoughtful response! Whoever gets to the additional modifications first then is fine. (For me, I think I have to let it simmer a couple of days :-) ). With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 05:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, things are beginning to simmer some.... How about something like the side box to the right here? Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 06:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arrow - thanks again for the quick and helpful response. After tweaking the sidebox some (e.g., change "mediation" to "meditation" {gasp} and remove wikilink to citta which is an article about the Buddhist disciple), I'll move it presently next to the section on "From the Pali Canon." My reason for placing it there is primarily so that it won't collide with the fully-expanded Template:Buddhism on extra-wide (e.g. newer Dell laptop) displays. If for any reason you'd like to move the box elsewhere, please feel free to do so.

FWIW, I'm a wee concerned that some might (rightly) wag a finger at my use of the phrase "Most Buddhist traditions" - where "most" is a wiggle word. I'm trying to actually be inclusive of contemporary self-labelled Buddhists (who I find, in general, to be extremely earnest and pleasant but uneducated about what appears to me to be the obvious merits of the traditional teachings, etc.) who think mindfulness is the whole path; also, I simply don't know about all Buddhist traditions; so, I wiggled. Also, my translating citta as "meditation" is a potentially problemmatic (though not without precedent) distortion to attempt to make the Threefold Training's intent clear to the article's reader.

Good doing a joint edit with you! With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to you too, of course, for instigating the change and providing its core text. :-) Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you OR tagged the Ajivika article. I just removed the section on theism in the Ajivika tradition- it doesn't seem to tie back to the rest of the article, and the claims about theism don't match anything that I've ever read regarding the tradition. If there are other specific areas that you think need work, please mention them on the Talk page- I have access to Basham's book and a few other things that might be useful in bringing the citations up to snuff. --Clay Collier 08:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC0

Arrow740, may I please know what specifically is uncivil in what I have said? I shall greatly appreciate your response. Thanks.Kanchanamala 11:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arrow,

Can you please join Talk: Safiyya bint Huyayy? You have been revert warring for months yet have ignored all comments on talk since February.Bless sins 04:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to my edit summaries, which are about as long as your talk page posts. Arrow740 04:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arrow, with all due respect, Ethics and Religion have gone hand-in-hand as far back as we can trace. I don't see the point in quoting someone who claims that Buddha thought of it first. Surely Buddhism doesn't have to prove it's the oldest religion in the world in order to be relevant? If the practice works it works, simple as that. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 09:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On your talk. Arrow740 09:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: It says that it was a Buddhist innovation that ethical behavior leads to a deeper understanding of spirituality

That means the same thing. Have ethics & spirituality/religion not always been linked? In which religion of the world have they not? To say that Buddha was the first to do this seems nonsensical. There were no ethics in the Vedic religion which Buddha rejected, or early Judaism? Regards, Gouranga(UK) 10:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were linked previously but not in that way. I don't really know about the Vedic religion's ethics. Arrow740 19:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arrow, as a practitioner of Islam for 25 years and having read lot of books both for and against Islam and its teachings, I feel I am qualified enough to write about Islam. Reading the Jihad section in Islam was very amusing to me because I have never read such "facts" in any of the books. I felt those statements were potentially hurtful to the Muslim community and a result of Islamophobia hence I requested a citation reference.

However, I don't want to get involved into this nor am I interested in any arguments. I never believed that Wikipedia would be objective when it comes religion. So, I will go back to contributing only to technical articles and other non-controversial pages.

You guys continue to have fun. Regards, --Irfan 09:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple Muslim editors looking at the sources those sentences you took issue with are from, and they concur that those sentences are accurate distillations. I'm glad you were able to learn something from wikipedia. Arrow740 06:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow740, as a Hindu I feel the same way as Irfan5 does. You removed my observation from the talk page instead of facing it. As my fellow user has already said, you guys continue to have fun. Thanks.Kanchanamala 06:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are referring to this. Your post was trolling, and insulted (Hindu) users who are doing their best to advance the project by quoting scholarly sources on the discussion page as part of their effort to advance the work on the article in a very congenial manner. Arrow740 06:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, what is the use of any effort, congenial or otherwise, if it does not produce a reasonably good article? I hold that the rules are there to help us, not hinder. If some of us unduly get carried away by the rules, I can't help noticing it when it comes in the way of producing a good article. Thanks.Kanchanamala 08:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You recently deleted material from Talk:Islam in the United States that was post by a banned user. See [[8]]. I believe this was a mistake. I more appropiate response would have been to "strike through" the material. I believe this is more consistent with Wikipedia's policies regarding talk pages. See WP:Talk. For a further explanation of my logic see [[9]].

Apparently you disagreed because you delted the material again. However, you did not stop there. You also deleted my explanation of why I readded the material. See [[10]]. I would like to point out that I am not a banned user and deleted my edits to a talk page is against Wikipedia policy. Not only did you delete both my passage and the banned user's passage, but you only explanation was "I am WP:3RR exempt." I believe that you are mistaken about this. My edits were made in good faith and while you may disagree with them, they cannot be considered vandalism. Reverting them is not exempt from the 3RR rule.

In the future, you should provide clearer explanations for your edits. If I have missed something in Wikipedia's policies I am open to correction. However, I would appreciate it if you provide specific citations of Wikipedia policy so I can confirm then. Thank you. Umer Al-Amerikee 13:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:3RR#Exceptions. I didn't mean to remove your post, sorry about that. Arrow740 19:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

we all did compromise, yes, and i appreciate that. i had proposed a trimming and copyediting of the Other religions section quite a while ago, and i had hoped somebody else would do it. i explained the rationale for the edit in the jihad section on the talk page (it doesn't detract from the meaning in any case). ITAQALLAH 04:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the banned editor? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you've made that allegation, but there's no evidence, and the account isn't banned. Do you have any indication that it's him (similar writing or anything else)? Also, regardless of who is behind that account, that doesn't change the fact that the article was a BLP violation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask a couple of CUs to look at the checkuser report. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Arrow740 11:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not on Islam. Thank you. ΞΞΞ 01:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice addition about the Guru, by the way. Should it get that much detail though? ΞΞΞ 01:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your invitation to discuss. I intend to do that. However, I think you'll find many editors who have not previously discussed their edits to edit that article today. It happens to all the articles that appear on the main page. Have a nice day. :) ΞΞΞ 01:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the future when giving people 3RR warnings, please use the {{3RR}} template.--Sefringle^Talk 01:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain! Agoras 05:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus of editors, no matter what it will be, does not have any permissions to misrepresent the sources [11]. The source here says 1.4. Agoras 05:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not split hairs. There's 05:44, July 1, 05:15, July 1, and 00:59, July 1, but also 04:48, June 30 and 03:57, June 30, which together make five reverts within a span of twenty-six hours. The proliferation of an edit war, especially while an article is Today's Featured Article, is completely uncalled-for. -- tariqabjotu 05:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't violate the rule. I have been heavily involved in this article, you should be lenient on me instead of people who show up to remove massive amounts of sourced content. I won't edit again on that page for a day if you unblock me, how's that? You might also want to keep in mind that I am restoring the consensus version, and I incorporated Agoras' 1.4 number. Also when Itaqallah removed my addition about Sikhism, I did not restore it when I had the opportunity. Arrow740 05:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tariqabjotu, while I appreciate your point about hair-splitting, Arrow740 has three reverts within 24hrs, and more crucially two are of a user who 1) did not join talk 2) is conceivably a sock 3) very clearly and consciously violated 3RR himself despite being warned. I feel especially bad as Arrow740's last revert I intended to do myself; as you see from the edit-times he very narrowly beat me to it.Proabivouac 06:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other user has been blocked for 24 hours as well. In my opinion, this was not just preventing disruption to Today's Featured Article, but a clear continuation of an edit war. But for the article being ToFA, this article would have been fully protected. Unfortunately, that is not an option. The next best thing is to block those responsible for the edit war, which includes you (Arrow). If another admin decides to come by and unblock you, fine. But at this rate, the article will be up at FAR by the end of the month due to stability. Regarding the sockpuppetry claims... unfortunately, they're just conjecture at this point. -- tariqabjotu 06:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said I wouldn't edit it for a day, and there is no vio. Amin has 3 reverts and a disruptive tag and is provoking conflict here, I don't see you blocking him. This is unfortunate. This when you denied my 3RR report a few days ago when there was a violation, and were later overruled. Do you have something against me? Arrow740 06:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt Tariqabjotu has anything against you, Arrow740; more likely he aimed to be evenhanded between you and User:Agoras. Nevertheless, you should be unblocked, as User:TheFearow seems to agree.[12] There is no doubt in my mind that Arrow740 will not edit Islam for the remainder of the block period.Proabivouac 06:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe what I see. A good-faith editor is blocked for reverting a disruptive sockpuppet. Arrow should be commended. not blocked. Beit Or 17:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is extensive edit-warring going on. All I did was restore the consensus version when people who aren't involved in the article removed massive amounts of sourced, agreed-upon information. And I didn't violate the rule, unlike User:Savidan, who did, but just instituted changes different from mine. He was not blocked. Also Muslim User:Dashes just had technically his fifth revert. By the way, I join the longtime Muslim editors to Islam in supporting the recent full protection at the consensus version. Arrow740 17:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should say that I am "surprised" that Tariqabjotu uses his admin status to block an editor (Arrow740) that haven't violated the rule, without banning any of the several other editors on that article that actually has in fact violated it (Aminz is one of them). On the other hand I should properly also mention that I was one of the editors that strongly opposed that he received admin status in the first place, arguing that he would properly not be able to use his admin powers in a neutral way. -- Karl Meier 19:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mlechha, Nastik, Dasu, Hinduism has it's own set references for non-believers. The article is pretty much a stub as is atm. If you want to improve it through sources go ahead and we can work on it, but it is quite an easily verifiable term so doesn't merit removal and worked on to improve if necessary. Even Gandhi has mentioned in his writings. As for how common they are or what is the preferred term, I can't say, just noting these as they ones I have come across so they aren't quite out of usage either.--Tigeroo 08:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From my limited exposure to this term, I would say that a better translation of Mleccha would be "barbarian." It was used to refer to the invading Muslims, for example. Faith isn't a big deal in Hinduism at all (it's viewed as a constraint in Buddhism). Nastik in common speech means "atheist," in Sanskrit Nastika is someone who rejects the authority of the Vedas. That might be the best term to put on the infidel page, actually. Arrow740 08:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sanskrit term mlechha (म्लेच्छः) is defined as "a disparaging name for non-arya peoples" in the index to John Keay's India: A History, (p. 569) where it is mentioned frequently. The term comes up often in various usages. The root from which the word is derived is म्लेच्छ् (mlecch) which Apte says means "To speak confusedly, indistinctly or barbarously" which points to the original sense of referring to people who did not speak the same language. Here are the various definitions given by Apte (A Practical Sanskrit Dictionary, p. 776) showing several senses when used as a masculine noun: "1) A barbarian, a non-Aryan (one not speaking the Sanskrit language, or not conforming to Hindu or Aryan institutions), a foreigner in general; 2) An outcast, a very low man; 3) A sinner, wicked person. 4) Foreign or barbarous speech." When used as a neuter noun (म्लेच्छं) it means the metal Copper. Note that various compounds have special senses, however. For example, the compound मलेच्छभाषा (mlecchabhāṣā) means "foreign language".

You could probably make a case for mlechha as infidel, but I think that the semantics are a bit different, as it is not based on matters of faith, but on racial difference or simply "foreign-ness" in its basic meanings. In Hindu philosophy, the technical term for those those persons who do not accept the authority of the Vedas is नास्तिक (nāstika; "heterodox"), with citations to be found at Nastika. I don't have the energy to comment on that article now, but the sourcing I have given here you can cut and paste if you wish. Hope this helps, and if you do wish more citations please let me know.

I would add as a personal comment, without having a citation to prove it, that in my experience the term mlechha has connotations of being an insult, which is not as much the case for nāstika. For example, one could refer to a Buddhist friend as a nāstika and simply be making a statement of fact, but calling him a mlechha could be construed as "fighting words". I stress that this observation is a personal comment, not sourced. Buddhipriya 08:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Buddhipriya. I appreciate the commentary. I believe the main item to identify here is the concept of "other" or non-Hindu in religious terms. Fighting words, Insults are not really necessary but usually all societies have regarded the "other" disparagingly so they will come up in this case by default. If there is another term better suited instead please do offer it. In my experience in coming across the term it has usually come up in references to non-Hindu faith based races i.e the Huns, Greeks, Persians, Muslims, Christians etc and even occasionally Jains/ Buddhists. The question is how has "foreignness" or "other" been defined. Usually it is based on differences with social practices and beliefs which are invariable tied back to religious beliefs and conceptions with the different one somehow always being seen as barbaric or backward & unrefined. The term doesn't seem to have be applied to distant foreign Hindu lands and receded from identification of Jains and Buddhists as the religious tenets grew more entwined. The fact that the term also got entwined with affecting ritual purity seems to imply a religious connotations as well. Anyway this exposition is more to see how we can make the section more accurate and relevant, and not be construed a defense of it as it stands. Any input/ further discussion would be well received.--Tigeroo 09:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike my knowlege of Abrahmic faiths, my understanding of Dharmic faiths is very low. Thus, I'll probably accept any fair decision you guys can come up with.Bless sins 15:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enough original research. Find reliable sources that say "mlechha" has something to do with "infidel", or leave it out. And please discuss this on the article talk page. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up the word "infidel" in Apte's reverse dictionary and find that the first term listed as a translation is नास्तिकः (nāstika). The word mlechha does not appear as one of the alternate terms. Citation: p.227 of Apte, Vaman Shivram. The Student's English-Sanskrit Dictionary. Motilal Banarsidass, Third Revised and Enlarged Edition. Pune, 1920; Reprint, Delhi, 2002, ISBN 81-208-0299-3. I will post a summary of the citation to the talk page for the article. Buddhipriya 08:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(prior discussion truncated)

They are all violations. There's nothing to explain. The real issue is why tariqabjotu declined to block two of these editors; instead, he choose to block me when I hadn't violated 3RR. Perhaps when other admins don't want to involve themselves in this highly acrimonious area of wikipedia, B1nguyen does the right thing. Arrow740 07:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I decided against bringing up tariqabjotu's behavior after he blocked me for 3RR when I hadn't violated it. Now that he has brought it up, I have to say that it is hypocritical for the person who actually has been choosing to use or not to use his tools for reasons outside of policy to accuse someone who actually follows the policy of wrong-doing. Arrow740 07:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly did not even read what I wrote to Blnguyen (and perhaps not even his response). Blocking for fewer than four reverts in twenty-four hours is entirely within the bounds of policy (as noted in the intro for WP:3RR), particularly when the editor has made not four, but five reverts in twenty-six hours. Your suggestion that After Midnight was also biased because he allegedly has had conflict with another user who agreed with you on something is just an excuse. You seem bitter about the block, and unfortunately don't believe you did anything wrong, and so you are searching for a way to dismiss my actions, and the actions of After Midnight, as bias rather than a valid block that simply did not result from straight revert counting. Blnguyen said he prefers straight revert counting when it comes to religious and ethnic articles; I and After Midnight, on the other hand, apparently are willing to deviate. That does not mean Blnguyen is within policy and I am not; it means he took a different approach than me – one I find puzzling, and don't agree with, because he was okay with blocking Dashes and not okay with blocking you (but again, that, I presume, comes from straight revert counting). Your inability to see this as a difference of opinion on 3RR blocks is disheartening, but not a big deal to me. You appear to have made up your mind that I have some bias against you, using selective evidence to support your position and ignoring contrary evidence. Unlike you, I was merely asking Blnguyen for an explanation for the surprising recent series of events, not convicting him of bias without hearing or asking for his thoughts. So, if you have a further issue with this, bring it up to WP:ANI or WP:COIN, where I will gladly sink your argument. Otherwise – and I believe this is the better route – you should drop this issue and quit taunting me with your allegations. -- tariqabjotu 17:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying you should be desysoped for blocking me. But perhaps you should rethink your blocking strategy. The fact is that you declined to block two Muslims who had violated 3RR and chose to block someone like me who hadn't (using two of my three reverts on a likely sock who was doing nothing but removing sourced content on main page day), then didn't block another Muslim, Aminz, who was also at 3R and being disuptive on top of that. As I said, I planned to let sleeping dogs lie until your posts yesterday. Arrow740 19:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I respond to 3RR reports, I don't categorize people based on their religion. Additionally, realize that I am under no obligation to respond to every 3RR request; it's not like that's my job. So, I'm not sure where you're getting two Muslims from (one is obviously Itaqallah, although his religion had no bearing on my response to the report) and I'm not sure why you're holding the Aminz report against me. I never suggested that you wanted me desyopped; I only said you're taunting me with allegations based on questionable evidence (and you're still doing that). If you will drop this and rescind the accusations, terrific. If you're not willing to do that, there are multiple forums through which we could put this matter to rest; just don't keep libeling me on my talk page. -- tariqabjotu 19:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second is Dashes. About Aminz, since he was clearly being much worse than me and also had 3 reverts, you were unfair in blocking me and not him. Also libel is a false accusation, and I'm not accusing you of anything, just pointing out the facts. Arrow740 19:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you are seeing an attack on Blnguyen (by the way: note it's a letter L not a number 1) in my comment. -- tariqabjotu 22:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"but we are going to have serious problems if we're going to have others who are willing to overrule because there were not four reverts in twenty-four hours, per se." Hopefully for the last time I will say that there were four reverts per se, and the argument to count two as one should be rightfully placed aside given Aminz' disruptive recent history. Arrow740 22:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we drop this? It's completely unproductive.Proabivouac 22:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to put all this behind me and move on. I hope he would do so as well. Happy Independence Day everyone. Arrow740 22:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing for me to put behind me; I have nothing against you and have always maintained that. What you see as bias is just a mere coincidence of events (in the same way that Blnguyen's recent actions have been mere coincidence and are not motivated by bias against Muslims). If by putting all this behind you, you mean you will rescind the accusations of bias, then that would be great. However, if you're not going to do that, I have little choice but to defend myself against them when necessary. But happy Independence Day to you too anyway. -- tariqabjotu 23:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Blnguyen's actions are different because he is actually acting according to policies - if you want to keep bringing this up I will continue as well. I haven't accused you of bias outright. I've just objected to your recent behavior, but I'm willing to put it aside and see how things proceed in the future. Arrow740 23:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... both I and Blnguyen are acting according to policies. See my post (on my talk page) from 17:23, July 4 (UTC) again. Appearances of impropriety and bias on both fronts are merely coincidental. -- tariqabjotu 01:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For him there is no appearance of impropriety as he blocked users with 4 reverts. Your situation is the opposite. Arrow740 02:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I direct the interested reader to User_talk:Arrow740#Why_you_are_misrepresenting_the_source_that_says_1.4.3F, User talk:Aminz#Unblock request, User_talk:Tariqabjotu#Interesting_pattern (note: this one starts with false accusations made by banned User:His excellency against User:Blnguyen that tariqabjotu has refused to let me remove or strikethru), User talk:Blnguyen#Bias against Arrow, User talk:Blnguyen#Aminz, WP:AN3#User:Aminz_reported_by_User:Arrow740_.28Result:page_protected.2C_week.29, and User_talk:Proabivouac#Completely_unproductive. Arrow740 01:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thought this might interest you.Proabivouac 21:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring the image, I was doing right at the same time. --Strothra 11:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow740, be sincere and honest, do not make edits to fool others. You made edit here summarising that it is for Surah 9 section of the article, but quietly you reverted the Christians and Jews in the Qur'an section also. You were asked to give answers to the Talk page (Why is Harun Yahya an unreliable source?), but you did not any except your rhetorics without any basis. Do a favour of being honest, or I will take it to admins. ~atif - 01:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I explained the Christians and Jews edit earlier. The burden is on you to show that the propagandist Harun Yahya is a reliable source for exegesis of Islamic texts. Arrow740 00:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the prohibition from Allah? You cite nothing to justify the change. You threatened me with blocking, and I demand mediation!

Sorry that I posted this in the wrong place, Arrow. I am still figuring out how to move around and what all thes pages mean.

With all due respect, I am making a challenge to all who hold that there is no validity to the claim that the Quran and Sunnah did not prohibit Muslim women from marriage with ahl al kitab men, and that fiqh rulings on the subject are not cultural. Post the prohibition from the Sunnah, the tradition of the Prophet and the Quran to support that view. I am not denying that there has been held to be a prohibition, and Wikipedia is not the place to post partisan pov. It is intended to provide an HONEST look at positions that have been presented as Islamic which are little more than cultural adaptations not binding on all Muslims.

I was instructed to be bold, and that I am being.

I am an expert on Sikhs and Buddhism. I will visit Wiki sites re these subjects and make edits where I feel the need. I'm sure you will appreciate my edits as much as I appreciate yours, and find my knowledge of the subject to be as deep and unbiased as yours is re Islam. :) Cya around, friend!

Salaam FOA 07:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't used about.com as a reference; you have no evidence of that. We apparently have an edit war that will need the admin's attention. I will notify them of it. FOA 09:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Your "interfaith" is at about.com. Please stop harassing me. Arrow740 21:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please can you explain your restoration of original research on the talk page? i am not sure why you've strangely turned up on the page, declaring your personal point of view as an attempted justification for your first revert[13], and offering no rationale for the second[14], nor any reasoned arguments on talk page discussion at all. i know you maintain quite strict standards about original research on other particular articles- as you should- which makes these edits all the more surprising. thanks. ITAQALLAH 10:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar.--Sefringle^Talk 01:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You recently compiled and listed a case at request for checkuser. A checkuser or clerk has asked that you list the code letter which matches with the violations of policy, which is listed at the top of the request for checkuser page. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed in a timely manner. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. GrooveDog (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC), checkuser clerk.[reply]

He has all the signs of banned user His excellency. I filed a checkuser request but no action has been taken. Are you familiar with that case at all? Arrow740 23:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! If the block expires and he continues with the edit wars before we have an answer on the sockpuppetry, please let me know. Owen× ☎ 23:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I indefinitely blocked User:Pilotjokes, but it isn't showing up in the block log. Let me (or someone) know if he continues to follow and revert you. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the question left for you on the talk page [15]. --Aminz 04:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add links to diffs of myself out of context? They do not make any positive contribution to the encyclopedia. Please remove the existing ones. --Aminz 08:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The context you added changed the meaning of that one, so I removed it. With the others, that is not the case. Arrow740 09:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep the comments you enjoy reading somewhere else. Yes, they do omit the context against which they were made and some of which are meaningless ([16]). --Aminz 00:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The funny part of that is Pro's edit summary. If you think that any particular diff of yours there needs more context to be explained, I'll take it off. Arrow740 01:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

السلام عليكم يا أروى حبيت اقولك بس إنك لازم تكتوبين إنو الرسول صلى عليه وسلم اختار لكي يكون المركز الاول للشخصية الاكثر تأثيرً في العالم لكل الوقت وفي المركز الثاني سيدنا عيسى عليه السلام وشكراً

If the google translating thing is right this isn't insulting, so I'll leave it. Arrow740 00:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: "May peace be upon you. My dear, I wanted to tell you that Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) was chosen as the most influential personality in history, and Isa (Pbuh) in 2nd place" -- END OF QUOTE -- TRANSLATION PROVIDED BY M@M

I wouldn't dispute that they're both in the top five. Arrow740 08:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find the anonymous claim rather debatable, to say the least.--C.Logan 17:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:[17]. i think you know full well the material is already elsewhere. please don't make inflammatory allegations of censorship anytime material is removed. furthermore, the version you inserted is not the compromise you agreed to on the Zaynab article. do represent what Watt says about the incident. ITAQALLAH 01:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that that is the only explanation. You can reinstate the slightly altered version if you wish. The goal is not to represent Watt's POV on the issue, but to represent history as best we can. Arrow740 01:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

surely you can accept that it is reasonable to summarise the marriage in two or three lines, in consistency with the other entries. ITAQALLAH 01:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This marriage is more notable than many of the others and there is a lot more to say about it. Arrow740 02:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arrow740 -- there's a request for mediation involving you, me, Aminz, and Proabivouac concerning Muhammad -- please reply:

[18]

Peace, BYT 13:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arrow 740. You've been engaged in a revert war on that article for months now. Please join the discussion on the talk page (i've started a fresh section: Talk:Safiyya_bint_Huyayy#Enough_is_enough). Thanks.Bless sins 04:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow740, though the chance of this edit standing in toto in this relatively (and unfortunately) unscholarly environment approaches zero, this is fantastically informative and enlightening material. Thank you for producing it. I'll be interested to see what feedback this generates, with an eye towards distilling its most fundamental points. You have just raised the bar.Proabivouac 09:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've been telling Aminz for days that it makes no sense to include arguments about history from revisionist (they contradict earlier scholars) Muslim scholars but not the counterbalancing arguments from the earlier scholars and modern western historians. He didn't listen, even though he said he would. Arrow740 09:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The earliest biographies, sira-maghazi literature and tafsir corpuses of the first two centuries of Islam…" is briefer, less argumentative, and I think captures the key points.Proabivouac 09:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Aminz insists on using the article as a platform to argue that the event didn't happened by only representing the arguments of those he agrees with, we will have no choice but to include the other arguments to achieve NPOV. Arrow740 09:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only meant that to condense/replace the first sentences of your edits (until the first ref,) not the rest.Proabivouac 09:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

these passages, forming most of the edit:

... the sira-maghazi literature [dating] from the first two centuries of Islam...

... the respective tafsir corpuses transmitted from almost every Qur'anic commentator of note in the first two centuries of the hijra

Those scholars who acknowledged the historicity of the incident apparently had a different method for the assessment of reports than that which has become standard Islamic methodology. For example, Ibn Taymiyya took the position that since tafsir and sira-maghazi reports were commonly transmitted by incomplete isnads, these reports should not be assessed according to the completeness of the chains but rather on the basis of recurrent transmission of common meaning between reports.

Other scholars accepted the idea that the fact of widespread transmission meant that the reports about the satanic verses incident could not be rejected outright, but also took the position that the equal fact of the infallibility of Muhammad meant that the incident could not have taken place in the specific manner narrated.

have been selectively picked and copy-pasted, word for word, from Shahab Ahmed's "Satanic Verses" Encyclopedia of the Qur'an article. in any respected institution, doing that without clear cut quoting and attribution of these words to Shahab wouldn't be called scholarship, it would be called plagiarism. not that it bothers me enough to accuse you of it, Arrow, but please at least try to take the time to represent sources fairly and in your own words. ITAQALLAH 17:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What, so I'm not supposed to be selective? I should pick sentences at random? What a relief, you've been kind enough to spare me an accusation of plagiarism from you. Thank you for being so generous. Arrow740 21:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're copying word-for-word, he does have a point. If something is an exact quote, it needs to be presented as such with attribution. Why not present the relevant passages on talk so we can discuss and determine what we'd like to include, and how.Proabivouac 21:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are already there. Arrow740 21:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yeah I think its fair to describe Time (magazine) as low-brow. It has a mass market popularity and loves the weasle words we would be shot down in seconds for repeating - take this beauty from this weeks edition "Some Saudis, only half jokingly, refer to the mutaween's behaviour as "state sponsered terrorism,". If it does strike you as POV please correct it as necessary. kind regards, Mike33 - t@lk 08:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries:This page is considered an editing guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this page's talk page.

Please join in the discussion on the Women and Islam rather than summarily attempting to dictate according to your own biases. The revision you insist upon is not neutral, nor reflective of the dynamics of the issue in the Muslim ummah. I don't know your history or belief set, but Islam is my faith and what I study and live by. There is a diversity of thought in its tradition, and you are trying to shut that down by eliminating any suggestion of an alternative view of the restrictions on marriage, even when presented by Islamic scholars. I'm not so hot on Friedmann being presented as an authority on Islam, but I can live with that. You don't have to agree with dissenting scholars, but to shut them out completely exhibits a bias that has not been substantively explained. Edit summaries don't do the job. Salaam FOA 15:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes they do, Khaleel Muhammad is an extreme minority view. You'd be better off trying to argue that his positions have ijma than with posts like this one.. Arrow740 22:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with Friedmann being held out as a greater authority on Islam than a Muslim scholar. There is nothing wrong about presenting a minority view in a balanced manner against other views, as my revison does. Yours is by no means a balanced view. A NEUTRAL pov would not hold solely to the so called "majority" opinion, but also include the dissent, which is allowed when examining fiqh rulings. What constitutes ijima is not even agreed upon, so invoking it as a principle is not a strong defense for your position. Your revision does nothing to present neutrality and everything to exclude a balanced view of a fiqh ruling that is based on the needs of a particular time and place, not on sharia. What are your credentials for and interest in this issue? I hope you will tell me. I do detect a discernable and strong bias against neutrality or diversity of thought on your part, and I would like to know if I am mistaken. I am more than willing and able to hold to my revisons if we are unable to dialogue and reach a stance that is satisfactory. Thank you. FOA 03:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You might agree with Khaleel Muhammad, but since he contradicts all the classical Islamic scholarship which is still held to be authoritative across the Muslim world, very few others do. Arrow740 04:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is a subject where you know a lot and I know nothing: there was a piece on BBC Radio 4 two days ago about the slaughter of Muslims trying to escape into Pakistan immediately post partition by India Hindus. There were quite a few interviews including with some Hindu Profs who witnessed it. This isn't an account I have previously heard of: I think the point of it was to blame us Brits for creating racial tension on both sides with how the partition was handled. I was curious whether this is well documented or not and whether it was a bit of a party piece (which is possible on the BBC). --BozMo talk 07:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is well documented. The ethnicities were the same. There were atrocities on both (well, all three) sides with Hindus and Sikhs killing Muslims and vice versa. The British were partly to blame due to their divide and rule strategy, but Gandhi was also partly responsible in that he was so publicly Hindu (as opposed to someone like Nehru) that he became a polarizing figure. Jinnah of course also played a role by agitating strongly for a partition, and Mountbatten mismanaged the transition to some degree. That's all I can really say about it off the top of my head. Arrow740 07:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough. Thanks. --BozMo talk 07:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Wikipedia. If you can think of any other ways that I can further improve, please let me know. Best wishes, Elonka 04:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Muhammad. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 08:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your recent deletions. Thanks for doing that. I was preparing an argument for why the Charles Tart sentence didn't belong, and was pleased to see that you saved me the trouble. : ) TimidGuy 16:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow, I really hope that you'll somehow be able to come back soon. You are one of the best editors around here, and your efforts has been extremely important. -- Karl Meier 17:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he has retired.Proabivouac 04:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say that? --Sefringle^Talk 05:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at his userpage.Proabivouac 09:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I will just remove my last comment.--Sefringle^Talk 03:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back (even if temporary). --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware of the 3RR Rule when editing the Safiyya bint Huyayy article. Jauerback 15:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I spoke too soon. I misread the history. As of now, I doubt you're in any danger of violating this rule. Jauerback 15:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I share that doubt. Arrow740 16:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the section on the talk page entitled "Unresolved Picture Issue & call for an RfC" for my reasons for changing the dog image and caption.--Sefringle^Talk 00:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well can you undo that particular change of yours, since it wasn't your intent? I'd rather not get too close to a 3rr violation over trivial stuff.--Sefringle^Talk 00:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:[19], Craig Winn and Ali Sina are not reliable sources. --Aminz 03:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are hardly more reliable sources for criticism of Islam. Arrow740 04:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)