38
edits
User talk:Lightyears: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Saggy
Lightyears (talk | contribs) |
(→Saggy) |
||
| (31 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 08:05, 25 September 2016 (EDT) | [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 08:05, 25 September 2016 (EDT) | ||
== [[WikiIslam:Sandbox/Mosques]] == | |||
I made this new location of interesting hadiths about mosques. do you think it is fit for a QHS? | |||
One more topic i want to cover somewhere is torture/punishment in the grave. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 11:36, 10 October 2016 (EDT) | |||
:The torture / punishment in the grave could be interesting and is a suitable topic. Looking at the index list [[https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars|here]], the topics seem all to be things that are useful in criticism of Islam. I'm not sure what use hadiths about Mosque building or travelling to mosques have for anyone who might visit this site. Someone clicking the page might wonder, "what point are you trying to make with this page?". Go ahead if you want though, but maybe consider whether the Mosque one is worthwhile.[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 15:05, 10 October 2016 (EDT) | |||
::I find [http://sunnah.com/ibnmajah/4/8 this] (relatively) the most important one in that case. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 15:30, 10 October 2016 (EDT) | |||
==Shia quotes== | |||
Hi, the previous admins said that adding Shia quotes in a Sunni/general article weakens the article because our online critics can quickly dismiss Shias as non-Muslims and thus laugh at us (lol). How about a separate article for Shia hadith, fiqh, scholar fatwas etc? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 16:07, 18 October 2016 (EDT) | |||
:I think the old admins have a point when Shia quotes are used to make a point about Islam in general, because for Sunnis the Shia evidence may well be irrelevant. But for a page just cataloguing things for reference like the QHS pages, it might be worth making an exception (with some restructuring) for the very important subject of apostasy, simply so that it is easy to find the Shia rulings (both for ex-Shia Muslims (don't want them to feel forgotten either, and their apostasy laws are even more vicious) and waivering Shia Muslims, and also because it's such a common topic of interest for non-Muslims who often may want an overview of apostasy sources for Islam in general (for them Sunni and Shia may both be important). What I will do though is restructure the QHS page and the section in the main apostasy article slightly. I don't intend to dig out Shia hadiths too (I'm just fufilling requests from ex-Muslims at the moment after I told them on reddit about my recent work), but anyone can also then add a subsection under Shia on the QHS page for hadiths later if they wish (and the Qur'an and sirat quotes are useful for both sunni and shia).[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 17:11, 18 October 2016 (EDT) | |||
::Umm Qirfa task completed, more or less. [https://wikiislam.net/wiki/User:Saggy/Sandbox_-_Issues_with_Quran_and_Hadith#The_Story_of_Umm_Qirfa] The major apologetic claims I have addressed now. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 09:43, 23 October 2016 (EDT) | |||
:::You can add this to the page for approval, but I don't really want to spend time checking and reviewing things anymore (which requires me to familiarise myself with the topic if I'm to do it properly). I could do so for the evolution page too as an exception. | |||
::::Where is the page for approval? Do you have any contacts, emails etc of the exmna guys? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 14:13, 23 October 2016 (EDT) | |||
:::::I assumed you were going to incorporate it into this page [https://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Story_of_Umm_Qirfa] (I just googled wikiislam umm qirfa to see if anything was there already). I actually tried contacting exmna recently to let them know that the google analytics tracking ID needs to be changed to UA-2352016-1 somewhere in the folder http://wikiislam.net/extensions/googleAnalytics/ which I don't have access to (Google analytics hasn't been working since the site was moved to another server late last year because there's a Tracking Code Mismatch error). I tried emailing the President of EXMNA to ask who I could contact about this using his email address on the Staff page of their website, but he didn't reply. Earlier I'd tried their [email protected] email address, but it returns some error about google groups permissions. I guess wikiislam must be a low priority at the moment for them. At least for now they saved the site from disappearing which is the main thing![[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 15:34, 23 October 2016 (EDT) | |||
::::::Victory will be ours. :P [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 15:27, 24 October 2016 (EDT) | |||
== Jinns and Science == | |||
What are the exact views of apologists on jinns? Is it something like "they are creatures unknown to current science"? Do you have some good apologist sites claiming this about jinns? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 16:03, 26 October 2016 (EDT) | |||
:It's not something I've ever taken interest in. There's a page here with some stuff on them https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Jinn. As for apologetics, I'd imagine there are countless pages of nonsense about them, and lots of exorcism / jinn videos on youtube.[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 17:14, 26 October 2016 (EDT) | |||
::On this, I am thinking of a section in the Scientific Errors article. Jinns were made out of fire, says the quran, which is in fact impossible. (Later I can think of a main article about jinns, or expand [[Jinn|this one]]) [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 05:32, 21 July 2017 (EDT) | |||
:::Jinns, angels, magic etc, and all aspects of the "unseen" in general is of course pure nonsense. But none of it is seen by Muslims as following the laws of physics or as a scientific matter even in principle. Where they try to explain it they speculate that it means the jinn were made of the fire's energy or it was a magical fire or any fantasy they care to indulge. It's much as how they see miracles in general where anything goes. It's a different matter when it talks about tangible beings and objects like the falsifiable creation stories of humans and mountains now that we know about evolution, genetics, plate tectonics etc. [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 18:48, 22 July 2017 (EDT) | |||
::::Something created out of fire ''has to follow'' science. How does the error get solved if a Muslim says the laws of physics don't extend to it? (He could have easily said the seven heavens also are imaginary or are some invisible dimensions. how does that make and sense?) | |||
::::"Jinns were made out of fire" (15:27) is a scientific error. I guess you agree with it. Reason: To make it highly specific, fire is not a material as ancient people thought. Its a combustion process and has only a handful of well studied products (non-living). Now somebody will say they were made out of the gas etc. Sorry, living things are not gaseous. I am not quoting the hadith yet but they do teach that Muhammad saw every little detail of jinn: jinn are anthropomorphic or animal-like in their looks and behavior etc. This rules out any claims about an "unseen" creation. Maybe I will gather everything... [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 06:59, 23 July 2017 (EDT) | |||
==Editor rights== | |||
I lost my editor rights a few days ago and as a result all the pages have pending changes. Can you ask someone about this? I mean why it happened? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 10:18, 27 February 2017 (EST) | |||
:On the user rights log I can see that you were automatically promoted to editor a few months ago due to your number of edits. In other words, no-one made a conscious decision to upgrade you. | |||
:I had nothing to do with undoing your unintended promotion, but the reversal happened at the same time as they changed my rights so that I could fix the templates. I know that the new admin (exmna) were advised on what to do about my rights, so presumably at the same time they noticed your auto-promotion and agreed that your rights should revert back to the previous state and it was the new admin who actually implemented the changes. So what you have now is just a continuation of your previous rights as no-one intended for you to have editor rights. | |||
:They give such rights very sparingly based on their trust in the person's decisions and consistent quality of their edits, their arguments, their judgement on whether something is significant enough to warrant lengthening a page etc. The reasons they were not comfortable with you having full editor rights to make changes without review would thus be apparent in any previous discussions or disagreements you'd had with admin in the past, even though many of your contributions were welcome following review. [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 11:41, 27 February 2017 (EST) | |||
==Criticisms== | |||
I still wonder where exactly do Muslims criticize this Wiki (in English at least). Their pages are not easily googleable, which itself makes them hard to spot. Can you add some links of those critics in a page here? so that I can see what scientific errors/other erors they are refuting and how. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 08:03, 21 April 2017 (EDT) | |||
:I just happened to see a thread on the reddit Islam sub. I then did a search of their sub and looked through the comments of similar threads on the first page of results, so I soon had a small list of things to sort out. There's no doubt that there are lots of poor pieces of content here and they tend to point out the worst ones they find, so it's a good way to find high priority things that need fixing. As for scientific errors, the weak stuff is pretty much gone now. Hardly any valid, specific criticisms of the page are mentioned by Muslims, which are weaknesses I was aware of but hadn't bothered to change til now. Different people mention the same things after they seem to have scrolled a long way down the page, so these days it seems that they find it pretty hard to come up with significant criticisms of it. In one thread from a few months ago a guy decided not to convert because of that page.[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 10:02, 21 April 2017 (EDT) | |||
::You mean decided not to convert to Islam? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 10:28, 21 April 2017 (EDT) | |||
:::Correct, he came close to converting, but saw on the page that there's no way the Qur'an could be divine.[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 11:39, 21 April 2017 (EDT) | |||
::::That reminds me, we should restart the apostate testimonies. still locked i guess. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 15:27, 21 April 2017 (EDT) | |||
== Saggy == | |||
Hi, | |||
I saw that you blocked Saggy.[https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Special:Contributions/Saggy] He is a major contributor of both useful and unuseful stuff. Wouldn't it be better to put put some kind of sanction with regards to topics or editing main articles, instead of fully blocking and revoking talkpage. At least let him edit talkpage to see if he's willing to comply. I believe losing a longtime editor like him would do more damage than betterment. | |||
Thanks,--[[User:AAA|AAA]] ([[User talk:AAA|talk]]) 22:22, 9 February 2018 (EST) | |||
:Hi, the first part of the block comment relates to a page Saggy was building which had some very inappropriate content and has since been deleted by someone else https://wikiislam.net/index.php?title=WikiIslam:Sandbox/50000_Reasons_for_Leaving_Islam&action=edit&redlink=1 | |||
:The main problem is that neither I nor currently anyone else has the time to check his edits, which were very numerous and frequent. Admins past and present very much agreed that his edits need approval because while some are helpful and appreciated, many are certainly not for a variety of reasons, while others take disproportionate reviewing time and/or page length for minimal if any benefit. You bear a burden of joint responsibility when approving edits, and all this reviewing (which sometimes requires lengthy investigation) takes a lot of time, and longer still is needed for his arguing about some rollbacks. | |||
:The pending edits page only records the earliest 100 pending edits. Further ones do not appear there as the page is now full up (I may work through some of it at some point). So newer pending edits would not be reviewed even if someone has time eventually, except that when people with editing rights edit those pages in future, it is easy to not notice or perhaps care that you're approving a bunch of pending edits at the same time, especially given there was a rapidly growing backlog of pending edits scattered around the site (mainly Saggy's), and increasingly, multiple unreviewed edits to untangle for a page. As for sandbox pages, who knows what one of the many editors may approve and add to the site if asked by him when admins (there aren't any really active) and ExMNA aren't paying attention. I'm not sure if enabling his talk will allow him to make requests of other users and there are things he could change/hide that would hinder another admin from fairly judging whether and when to remove the block. | |||
:My opinion, not least after seeing the page I linked to, is that the risks to the site outweigh the benefits of unblocking, at least when there is no ExMNA supervision. I leave it to ExMNA to review the situation when / if they ever get someone for supervising the site and clearing the pending edits backlog. They know about the block, and it seems they were already aware of him given that they had previously reverted Saggy's editor rights when he got them automatically for reaching a certain number of edits. Given the backlog, he must have realised that there was a risk he was wasting a vast amount of time unless he hoped he would find someone to one day give him editor rights again so that he can approve his own edits. That's something I and ExMNA would be unwilling to facilitate for the reasons above.[[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 13:09, 12 February 2018 (EST) | |||
:ok--[[User:AAA|AAA]] ([[User talk:AAA|talk]]) 23:34, 15 February 2018 (EST) | |||