Farrukh38

March 2008

Bradv15 It is to be requested that please revert the name of AL-kitab as Islamic Holy books and make that article seprate as these two are different and not same. not new but about existing text of Quran.knowledge and research. thanksFarrukh38 (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Bradv15 Editor2020 started this without having discussion. please read talkpage of farrukh38 and read all my replies even then Editor2020 did that with the page. first he suggested to change the name, which was changed by me, then he says the page looks like Islamic holy books and redirected ther.

 research, knowledge  references also gave.

I have requested to have a third party opinion to have solution of this dispute. it seems that few wikipedea admis are here just to write what they want and not the truth. if the case is such then will wait a third party.

Farrukh38 (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the recent edit you made to Injil has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Pewwer42  Talk  17:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If you felt that was in error, go ahead and put it back, it just looked like link spam in the comparison view--Pewwer42  Talk  17:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for calling me respectable(and sir for that matter)as to what you wrote, I would suggest you suggest it on the articles Talk Page and left others agree on its validity first(also suggest grammatical changes if needed). As to formatting, I'm not that good at it myself but I think it should look something like this

First revealed Al-kitab which confirms what is in between his two hands and revealed At-taurat and injeel.

This in the editing box looks like this->First revealed Al-kitab which confirms what is in between his two hands and revealed At-taurat and injeel. <ref name="Translations of the Qur'an">{{cite web|url=http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html/#003.003|title=Translations of the Qur'an|date=2008-03-01|3:03|publisher=University of Southern California}}</ref>

using this will give the reference at the end of the article looking like this

if {{reflist}} has been added to the page

hope this helps--Pewwer42  Talk  00:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Qur'an, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add your reference to the article. Additionally, you don't need to sign contributions you add to the article page because who added what can be seen in the history. Signing is important for talk pages when we're discussing with each-other. See WP:SIG. Thanks. ITAQALLAH 23:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Qur'an. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 17:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Citation help

{{helpme}}

Hello Farrukh. Do you have a specific question? It appears there may be some technical problems with your recent edits. If that is why you used the {{helpme}} template, please refer to the Wikipedia policy links that the other editors have suggested. Hoof Hearted (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

would you please help me out by correcting the wrong citaion and reliable sources. thanks

Understand that I am not a scholar of the Qur'an, so I know very little about the subject matter. It appears that others are questioning the reliability of the information you linked. If you feel that your sources meet Wikipedia policies for Verifiability and Neutrality, I think the best thing to do is discuss the issue on the Qur'an talk page as you started yesterday. Hoof Hearted (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Farrukh, you are inserting {{fact}} tags where citations are already present, while simultaneously inserting your own unsourced and largely incoherent material. Please stop doing this. It would be a lot better if you could explain on the talk page exactly what changes you would like to see, because that's one thing I'm not really understanding from your comments. ITAQALLAH 22:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at this Farrukh: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam#Reference_Materials --Be happy!! (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

ITAQALLAH, you are not getting my point, i have placed citation tag where you have used Qura verse and that verse does not have that claim which is a misguiding in the name of Qur'an, please have a look below for your claim that Quran revealed in 23 years, besides britannica reference mentioned this 17:106 verse of Quran which does not say in its text 23 years so it is to be requested that if you donot consider the text of Quran as reliable source than please do not propagate wrong about any verse of Quran.

pasting the arabic text to show you that this verse cannot be used for a claim that Quran revealed in 23 years which the verse is not verifying.

17:106 وقرانا فرقناه لتقراه على الناس على مكث ونزلناه تنزيلا

---

Transliteration Waqur-anan faraqnahu litaqraahu AAala alnnasi AAala mukthin wanazzalnahu tanzeelan Literal And a Koran We distinguished it to read it on (to) the people on slow deliberation/comprehension , and We descended it descending.

---

Yusuf Ali (It is) a Qur'an which We have divided (into parts from time to time), in order that thou mightest recite it to men at intervals: We have revealed it by stages. Pickthal And (it is) a Qur'an that We have divided, that thou mayst recite it unto mankind at intervals, and We have revealed it by (successive) revelation. Arberry and a Koran We have divided, for thee to recite it to mankind at intervals, and We have sent it down successively. Shakir And it is a Quran which We have revealed in portions so that you may read it to the people by slow degrees, and We have revealed it, revealing in portions.

for Arabic language, the your claim in Qur'an is that AL-kitab is referred to "scriptures" there is not citation but on the mushaf there is citation as there was not Qur'an verse so io didnot put there citation tag. please read all carefully before taking any action. it can be discussed more to tell you to write the truth in wikipedea.. Pleaae donot take personal but improve the article by changing its name " Quran as per research and not as per its text" ThanksFarrukh38 (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC) hope you got the point .

Al-kitab as per Qur'an

A tag has been placed on Al-kitab as per Qur'an, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

Please do not put personal messages in the article mainspace, as the people to whom they are directed are unlikely to find them there. Thank you. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 15:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply, would you please help me out in telling how can the contents can be shown because it has a very big text even then it has been deleted as shot text. --Farrukh38 (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You might want to try Talk:Qur'an. But be advised that talk pages in Wikipedia should be used for discussing improvements on articles, not as a forum for the topics themselves. If you are here to promote a point of view, Wikipedia is not the right place. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 15:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There... I moved the page to User:Farrukh38/Al-kitab as per Qur'an. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 15:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont want to discuss Qur'an because there already i have written a lot but no reply about my all points to improve article for wikipedea,But i want to learn from you to merge my text to improve al-kitab as per Qur'an article thanks--Farrukh38 (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you should move the article back to its previous location: we want people to find it easily, so Al-kitab is much more natural to type in a search box than Al-kitab as per Quran which, anyway, sounds like you are providing original research. Just my 2¢. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 16:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

it sounds to you but not own research but proving the wrong meanings abot the word of AL-kitab from the text of Al-Qur'an, which is not good for wikipedea it self. please write on AL-kitab as per Qur'an's talk page and better we should invole third party for better opinion. thanks--Farrukh38 (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC) To, Blanchardb please come on AL-kitab talk page instead of my own talk page to show all comments to administrator, or should i paste all these comments on Al-kitab as per Qur'an talk paste? thanks--Farrukh38 (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Al-kitab as per Qur'an

A tag has been placed on Al-kitab as per Qur'an requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 19:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"as per"

Hello, I'm trying to help make some Islam related pages understandable to English-speaking people. One thing I would recommend is that you not use the term "as per" in articles.--Editor2020 (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

ph really thank u very much, but how can i change it. i also want to write about this word as per text of Qur'an which is in Arabic. thats why i choosed this title, and for arabic text citation i also used extra links is that no good? and where can i find external link from wiki....please do help me out ..Farrukh38 (talk)

20:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed "as per" plz check now and suggest for more improvement.thank Farrukh38 (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on Talk Pages

Farrukh38, I encourage you to respond to recent messages by Editor2020 and myself on Talk:Al-kitab (Quran). The article is in danger of being deleted, as has already been done to Al-kitab as per Qur'an (6 times). —BradV 21:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Bradv15 please look in to the Editor response. replied to him still waiting for my text of article AL-kitab (Quran) . this will also be deleted as Al-kitab as per Quran which has so many discussions on talk page. plead and tell did he respond the replied arguments before changing the name of article as Al-kita. Farrukh38 (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC) thanks

As I indicated below, you moved Islamic holy books to AL-kitab. Editor2020 cannot fix that, neither can you or I. I have asked an administrator for help. —BradV 16:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Bradv thank you very much for help. please help me in improving this before deletion. it can be discussed at discussion page before deletion. thanking you and waiting for reverting actual page. Farrukh38 (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

BradV for your information,

Editor2020 has reverted edits by writing " made coherent" with out seeing talk page under section " versions of Quran having word Injil in in given references. which is under discussion 

is wrong reference of Quranic verse coherent?

is claims with Quran verses in coherent under Quran section of article Injil

Al-kitab (Quran)

Farrukh38,

I suggest that you delete the Al-kitab (Quran) article.

• It duplicates information that is at Islamic holy books. Multiple articles about the same subject aren't allowed.
• It has a multitude of problems which are probably not fixable without deleting and starting over.
• It appears to be original research.

You can watch and learn about the editing process at Islamic holy books. If you feel that there is any information that you could add to the subject, you should make small, correctly spelled and grammatically correct edits with references.

If Wikipedia has a version in your native language, I suggest that you go there to learn about how Wikipedia works and editing. --Editor2020 (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Editor2020

AL-kitab(Qura) looks similar to Islamic Holy Books, because half of Islamic holy books is as per text of Quran. or like Tawrat Injeel Qur’an the interpretation of text of Qur'an is used which is not as per existing text of Quran which is in Arabic, but interpretation of text of Quran.

AL-kitab(Quran) is a new name of AL-kitab as per Qur'an as per your suggestion, AL-kitab(Quran) contains the truth of text of Quran which is existing and not new which is in line with wikipedea, Original research The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, which is in all articles having concept of 4 holy Books in the name of Text of Quran, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified).

AL-kitab as per Quran is not a new knowledge but existing knowledge i.e as per text of AL-Quran which is not new but existing as Arabic Quran

Islamic Holy Books for the subject about previous scriptures looks as his origional research because of interpreting the text of Quran .

• The term knowledge is also used to mean the confident understanding of a subject with the ability to use it for a specific purpose if appropriate.

Purpose of AL-kitab(Quran) is to give the confident understanding of AL-kitab as per text of Quran which is not new and not interpretation of existing text of Quran.

The articles having concept of previously revealed holy books can be improved as per text of Quran to bring them as per wikipedea standard of truth. thanks Farrukh38 (talk) 07:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Editor2020 you wrote that "suggestion" but before having reply moved the page. the edits made also you have changed now it doesnot looks like islamic holy books even then you moved their.Farrukh38 (talk) 07:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive

Okay, this started out innocent but now you're starting to disrupt Wikipedia. You have moved Islamic holy books over your own personal preference, without any discussion with anyone else. Now Al-kitab redirects to Islamic holy books which redirects to AL-kitab. Can you explain why you would do that? Its such a mess now we need an admin to fix it. —BradV 13:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Bradv.: please help, my article has been deleted even it was under discussion. They are not considering the text of Quran as reliable source while the article is for Quran. The claims about Quran must be verified with text of Quran. why the wikipedia doesnot allow truth? why the informations about Quran donot verifiable with text of Quran. nobody has right to write any thing as per his will about Quran...Farrukh38 (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Posting correctly on talk pages

When you post a new topic on talk pages you should use the '+' to add a new section, don't just put it anywhere on the page. When you add to an existing section you need to put your reply at the bottom of that section.--Editor2020 (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Editor2020 ok thanks for guiding. would you please change revert the AL-kitab (Quran), as this doesnot have a similar text as Islamic Holy Books. thanksFarrukh38 (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Al-kitab (Quran)

I have nominated Al-kitab (Quran), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-kitab (Quran). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Request to consider Arabic text of Quran

Respected ,: HelloAnnyong . Do you want to say that wikipedea promote wrong informations about Quran?. No. wikipedea has edit sytem just to promote correct knowledge. I have given references of wikipedea like knowledge research on the talk page. please consider the Arabic text of Quran as reliable source which has been published by so many people. i recieved a call for paricipation but the link for reply was not secure that is why couldnot reply. Wikipedea shopuld promote truth and not people thoughts about Quran. Article of Quran must be as per text of Quran and not about Quran. If you like you can merge it with Quran but as apage " as per Text of Quran". Thanks Farrukh38 (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Notice

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Consensus. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Administrators. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. The policy pages are not the appropriate place for you to carry on this discussion. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom.: this is not experiment but i wanted to tell administrator that in wikipedea my article has been deleted even the discussion on the way. instead of replying somebody has deleted Al-kitab(Quran)...now i have come to know wikipedea doesnot allow truth about Quran but falshood which is called reliable source citation in wikipedea. wikipedea should stop writing about Quran but must write as per text of Quran....thanks Farrukh38 (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The reasons for the deletion are all in the debate. Remember that all I did was measure consensus with impartiality. If you dispute the result, you are free to go to deletion review. Singularity 22:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I believe that Singularity has indicated the proper forum for you to bring your concerns re: deleted articles. If you have further questions, please feel free to ask - here, on my talk page, at deletion review, at the Wikipedia Village pump discussion area - but NOT on the Policy Pages themselves. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I say again, all of the reasons are stated in the AfD. Users have also told you on the article's talk page before the discussion began that the article's topic is not legitimate for inclusion. The reasons are:

• • • • Contentfork - The article you wrote covers the same topic as Qur'an and Islamic holy books, giving the possibility for redundancy and bias, something we don't want on Wikipedia.
      • WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:V - In the article's references, all you cite is the Qur'an. The Qur'an is a primary source, and citing primary sources as the major source of information is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia. Secondary sources (published, reliable sources speaking of the primary source) should be used instead.

Remember, as the user above said, you are free to discuss this in a broader community at deletion review. Singularity 23:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Singularity...2- nobody replied my questions or considered my replies on tal;k page but deleted the article, the same questions are replied on talk page too but you are also writing the same as all other did.

what the above user is saying is not true, 1- it is not same as [islamic holy books] or like [Qur'an] but totally opposite because they are telling 4 books but text of Quran is not saying any where in whole quran that there are 4 holy books as per Quran. this exists in sources to which wikipedea calls "secondary source".

3-References all from Quran was just because the text of Quran can only be the truth which can verify all what about its text is. so the wikkipedea rule of primary source doesnot guilt in case of Quran. Because nobody has right to write what ever he feels likes in the name of Quran and wikkipedea takes that a true source which doesnot match with the text of Quran. if i write myself then should i not write what i am just because that i am primary source? please reinstate Alkitab(Quran) and follow or apply wikipedea rules same as applied with other articles. thanks (Farrukh38 (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC))

Hello, I believe that Singularity has indicated the proper forum for you to bring your concerns re: deleted articles. If you have further questions, please feel free to ask - here, on my talk page, at deletion review, at the

Al-kitab*Quran) deleted forcely without conidering replies

Wikipedia Village pump discussion area - but NOT on the Policy Pages themselves. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I say again, all of the reasons are stated in the AfD. Users have also told you on the article's talk page before the discussion began that the article's topic is not legitimate for inclusion. The reasons are:

• • • • Contentfork - The article you wrote covers the same topic as Qur'an and Islamic holy books, giving the possibility for redundancy and bias, something we don't want on Wikipedia.
      • WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:V - In the article's references, all you cite is the Qur'an. The Qur'an is a primary source, and citing primary sources as the major source of information is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia. Secondary sources (published, reliable sources speaking of the primary source) should be used instead.

Remember, as the user above said, you are free to discuss this in a broader community at deletion review. Singularity 23:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Singularity...2- nobody replied my questions or considered my replies on tal;k page but deleted the article, the same questions are replied on talk page too but you are also writing the same as all other did.

what the above user is saying is not true, 1- it is not same as [islamic holy books] or like [Qur'an] but totally opposite because they are telling 4 books but text of Quran is not saying any where in whole quran that there are 4 holy books as per Quran. this exists in sources to which wikipedea calls "secondary source".

-References all from Quran was just because the text of Quran can only be the truth which can verify all what about its text is. so the wikkipedea rule of primary source doesnot guilt in case of Quran. Because nobody has right to write what ever he feels likes in the name of Quran and wikkipedea takes that a true source which doesnot match with the text of Quran. if i write myself then should i not write what i am just because that i am primary source? please reinstate Alkitab(Quran) and follow or apply wikipedea rules same as applied with other articles. thanks (Farrukh38 (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC))

Islamic holy books

Regarding Islamic holy books, I gave my reasons for removal of the text. Much of it was original research. Most the text is blanket statements without any reference, except from the Quran. Please see WP:OR about use of primary sources in Wikipedia articles. Also, please use edit summaries WP:ES when you make changes to an article, especially when you fully revert a change. I see you told me about it, but I'm not the only editor here, you should inform all editors via edit summaries and article talk pages. Also, much of the information seems to be the same as from Al-kitabl (Quran), which was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-kitab (Quran), via consensus. Given this, I'm reverting your changes. Pepsidrinka (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Rspected ,Pepsidrinka (talk) you are admitting that references were only from Quran. As the topic is about the word Al-kitab that is why the references must be from Quran. Do u want to say that all statements for Quran must not have references from Quran but other people lies about Quran should be the references?.Is this wikkipedea policy to hide the truth of Quran? You did not read the talk page of Al-kitab and reverted all. thanks ````

Your recent edits to Tawrut

The date formats in the multiple 'fact' tags you added were incorrectly formatted, causing them to appear in a Wikipedia maintenance category I keep an eye on, "Articles with invalid date parameter in template". You also mixed in several edits which were misspelled, ungrammatical, incoherent and WP:Original research. I was unable to untangle and correct the errors in the multiple edits and decided to go back to a 'clean' page.

If you wish to contribute to the English-language Wikipedia, I suggest you do a few things.

• First, learn to write correct English. Your word choice, spelling, grammar, capitalization and punctuation (in English) are so poor that they render your edits incomprehensible to English-speaking readers.
• Second, learn and follow Wikipedia guidelines. Learn the guidelines for articles about Islamic subjects, especially the use of "pbuh" etc.
• Third, provide references from qualified experts to back-up your edits, instead of just stating your opinions and interpretations as if they were fact, or ignoring the references given, and pasting your edits right in the middle of someone else's referenced material.

I suggest that you learn about using Wikipedia by reading and editing Wikipedia in your native language.--Editor2020 (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Editor2020.: i agree with all your points and will improve but as per wikkipedea policy the editor should correct the gramer and spelling which u did not do and reverted the changes made by me. in case of Quran no where in Quran is written that there were previous revealed books before Quran, but people are writing theier own research in the name of Quran, that is why when i see any statement like that i want to ask about Quranic reference because if the claim doesnot exists in Quran then how can be written that Quran says or mentioned in Quran or placed an ayat no in supprt of their claim which does not exists in Quran. citation needed is placed when the claim has no evidence.

As the topic is as per Quran than the text of Quran is the true referenc and not qualified experts who are writing about verses of Quran which nobody can see in Arabic text of Quran. All the islamic articles like Tawrat injil,Quran,Aqidah and islamic holy books are interpritations which you did not deleted and propagating all that stuff in the name of Quran which has nothing to do with Quran. why the people are hiding the truth of Quran which is written in arabic text of Quran and not in books of qualified scholars, because these scholars are not scholars of Quran but of their subject

If you are going to edit on Wikipedia, you are bound by our rules. Our rules mean you have to cite secondary sources, the Qur'an is a primary source, please see WP:original research for more information. Your edits on Islamic holy books will be mostly reverted since they constitute original ideas from primary sources, instead of citing secondary sources. This is a Wikipedia rule, if you do not like it, you may have to write somewhere else, I am sorry. --Enzuru 23:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Islamic holy books

Please do not continue to use the Qur'an as a primary source to support your original research in this article. It is not allowed and will be reverted. Continued insertion on your part will be considered vandalism and may result in your account being blocked or banned. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

SmackBot

Please provide the diff on my talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 13:05 21 December 2008 (UTC).

Islamic holy books

I can't re-write it as what you put in is original reasearch, you have been told this before, and is impossible to understand what you are trying to say. If you want your edits to stick then provide sources and not just the Qur'an and make the edits understandable. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC) Respected sir, This is not an original research but explanation of topic with the help of Quranic verses.The topic is refering to Quran that is why the correct quranic verses can only be the source to understand the topic.If you donot like the Quranic verses then please delete all wrong Quranic references from the topic and not only mine Quranic references which are true references. You are listening people researches about Quran and donot looking in the Quran.writing about the Quran is people research and writing with verses of Quran is as per Quran.So please try to understand that wikipedea is a place to tell the people truth and not people research about Quran. Quran can be the only source to confirm any research about Quran. thanks--Farrukh38 (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The point is that it's impossible to uderstand what the section is trying to say. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You are interpreting the Qur'an yourself and using the Qur'an as the source. You need to find what repected scholars have said and use them as a source. I see from your talk page that this has been explained to you before. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Respected sir, You are right As the Quran is in Arabic that is why i pasted Arabic too, but then deleted as per wikipedea policy. That means Quran can be quoted in wikkipedea as reliable source to verify claims about Quran? please reply my question thanks--Farrukh38 (talk) 06:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The Qur'an cannot be quoted on Wikipedia to make a point, even to verify claims about the Qur'an, period. That is Wikipedia's ruling. If you further break WP:original research you will be blocked from Wikipedia. You must use the sources of academics and scholars. --Enzuru 06:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This edit is not understandable. No you can't take the Qur'an to verify any claim about the Qur'an and you can't take the Bible to verify any claim about the Bible. Plus you are interpreting the Qur'an yourself and telling the reader what you think it means. It must tell the reader what repected scholars have said. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 07:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather|CambridgeBayWeather

Thisis difficult to understand for you because this is the truth.discuss it i can be explain to you.if you want to know the truth.

wikipedea is a place to convey the real thing and not people thoughts.--Farrukh38 (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That is what you are doing. You are using your thoughts and opinions in the article. I can understand the article but just not the additions that you make. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Tawrat

Respected sir, You are saying that Quran cannot be quoted in wikipedea.Why wikipedea is writing abouit Quran.please delete all references of Quran from wikipedea and not just revert the topics.where in wikipedea written that Quran cannot be Quoted in wikipedea? which verse you see as interpritation? please discuss....thanks--Farrukh38 (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody ever said that the Qur'an could not be quoted. Please don't twist peoples words. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Quran and bible cannot be quoted in wikipedea"

A page you created, Quran and bible cannot be quoted in wikipedea, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is a test page. Use the sandbox for testing.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 17:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Thank ypou very much.i have created that page to know why the Quran and bible cannot be quoted in wikipedea as you see in last portion of my talk page. if this is right then why did he not deleted all Quranic references from islamic books but only mine? thanks--Farrukh38 (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The Rules

Sir:

I see that you are having a problem with your edits relating to Islamic Holy Books. Various Wikipedia editors have tried to explain what you are doing wrong, but you do not seem to understand what they are saying. Maybe I can help.

You ask, "Why can I not use the Qur'an to explain the Qur'an?" That seems reasonable, but that is NOT exactly what you are doing. I am going to give you two made-up examples. Perhaps they will help you see what is allowed and what is not.

1. Let us say that you want to say how many Suras there are in the Qur'an. That you may do because ANYBODY may look at a copy and count. There cannot be different opinions.
2. Let us say that you are comparing two Suras, and by looking at the text you can demonstrate that one is earlier than the other, perhaps one before and one after the Hegira. This you cannot do. Why? Because it is Farrukh38 who is making the demonstration. What you need to do is find some published authority on the level of someone like Al-Suyuti and quote HIM making the demonstration. What Al-Suyuti says has weight; what Farrukh38 says - even if it is the same thing - does not. Now while you may think that ANYBODY could look at the two Suras and tell which is earlier, this is simply not the case.

What is obvious to one person may not be obvious to another. And when it comes to matters like religion or politics there can be many opinions, even if some seem obviously wrong. That is why Wikipedia wants to know WHO is making the statements. When it comes to the Qur'an, there is almost nothing beyond the fact that it is in Arabic and divided into Suras that does not need a published authority to back up what you are saying.

Again, it is not that you cannot quote the Qur'an, but that what is needed is a more respected authority than Farrukh38 to say what it means. It does not matter how obvious that meaning seems to YOU.

B00P (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Respected Boop

Thank you very much such nice explanation.

But the arabic text of Quran is like how many surahs in quran. and different tanslators are not translating the exact arabic words. like step by step was mentioned in islamic holy books which is not written in Arabic text of that verse. secondly now in 3:4 the word Quran has been omitted in reference used in islamic holy books,the word Quran is written in arabic text but to establish their point the person has omitted the word Quran. now i am going to add the word Quran.--Farrukh38 (talk) 07:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Farrukh38:

No. Once again, it is Farrukh38 saying that the translation is wrong. No matter how well you speak both Arabic and English, you must find a published authority who has said the same thing that you are saying.

Do you know about the Discussion pages?

Every article has an associated Discussion Page. If you can not find a published translation that you think is correct, do NOT change the article, but make a note on the article's Discussion Page. Say what you have to say THERE. Perhaps a reader will know of a published translation that agrees with you.

Use the Discussion Pages, do not change the articles. That is the proper thing to do.

B00P (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Islamic holy books (again)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Islamic holy books. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. . Please do not add your personal analysis. Find a third party source that has already made the analysis whom we can quote.-- The Red Pen of Doom 00:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC). The red pen.: No original research but the explanation of arabic text , misused for the claim. The translation is incomplete....The word furqan is not mentioned in the claim. 3:3,4...should it need any reaserch to put correct words?--Farrukh38 (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Arberry

You write:

REspected...Arberry is not writing the Arabic text...the step by step is not written in arabic text of Quran wrong translation.

I don't understand you. I changed it to the Arberry translation precisely because he doesn't say "step by step". It was Abdel-Haleem's translation that said that. Evercat (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Evercat the word quran is missing in translation...--Farrukh38 (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Islamic holy books

Thank you for your interest in the article Islamic holy books. However, AGAIN, I feel the need to remind you that materials added to Wikipedia articles must be supported by 3rd party interpretation and anaylsis, NOT a Wikipedia editor's interpretation of the primary source material. Please find analysis and commentary about this subject that has been published by reliable sources and provide the appropriate information about where you have found the material you add (per WP:CITE).-- The Red Pen of Doom 17:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Islamic holy books, again

Please do not add original research to articles based on your interpretations and selections of quotes from the primary sources (the Qur'an etc.). The analysis needs to have been already been done by a third party source and we cite their analysis. Thank you.-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC) The Red pen of Doom.

this is not original research, Read please Tahrif and transl;ations of a.yousuf Ali, shakir, sarwar and arberry...revert the change please.--Farrukh38 (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If this is anaylysis that has been done by published authors, then you are failing to cite it in a way that is clear. Make sure that it is clear who has made this interpretation and where a reader can find the information. And no, linking to another Wikipedia article is not sufficient. Wikipedia is not a reliable source

for example: John Smith wrote in his book X that "blah blah blah" or "the rites of ___ have traditionally been interpreted to mean ___ footnote Author, article, publisher etc.

Do not directly quote the Qur'an or the other holy books.-- The Red Pen of Doom 19:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

And yet again, please do not add content based directly from the Islamic Holy Books themselves. It constitutes original research and is not allowed. Continual disregard for our policies will be considered disruptive behavior and may lead to your account being blocked. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did to Islamic holy books, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC) The Red pen of Doom.: These are translations of verse of Quran taken from a published source that is why is no original research policy sim,ilarly there are many translators of Quran . i have pasted all translations in support of claim whicis not synthesis. and wiipedea is a place to write the truth.--Farrukh38 (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC) The Red pen of Doom.: The changes made by me with support of Qurani ayat with different translation have been reverted by you without discussing on talk page. plz discuss and the revert....--Farrukh38 (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You are not familiar with our policies I see. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source"

It is also important that any analysis in an article be properly attributed the the third party source who makes the claim.

It is entirely appropriate to remove without any discussion content that does not meet our standards.-- The Red Pen of Doom 00:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

August 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Muslim, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Deconstructhis (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Tawrat, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Deconstructhis (talk) 01:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did to Hadith, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Deconstructhis (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Sir, you have reverted all.there are quranic verses regarding word hadith which is not orognal research but explanation of word hadith as per Quran.

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Qur'an alone, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Deconstructhis (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

These are Quranic verses and not original research.donot revert by just saying that this is original research.Quran alone also believe in Quranic verses so this is again quranic verses to support claims. The edits i made is not original research. These are the verses of quran which are facts and not my research.plz revert the verses of quran describing muslim as per quran.--Farrukh38 (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is a "fact" or self evident in Wikipedia, unless it is accompanied by a reference from a reliable source; personal interpretations constitute "original research", according to our policies. Despite the fact that in the past a number of editors have taken the time to attempt to explain to you in different ways that adding your own personal interpretation and other claims to articles regarding quotations from the Quran and other matters centring on Islam is not permitted; you appear determined to ignore their advice and continue to do so. Even though a year has passed since you last added this type of material; nothing has changed in our policies which would permit this type of editing and if you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing the encyclopedia. thank you Deconstructhis (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikkipedea is a place to tell truth and not to spread falshood.I have edited Quran portion to tell the quranic truth but it seems that you donot want to spread quranic truth thats why you are talking about quran without Quran it self. i have edited in hadith with published fact. please check and tell is this still original research to you? --Farrukh38 (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

you should encourage the edits and correct instead of blocking....which is also wikkipedea policy. please check the references of ayats with correct translation and not my research thanks --Farrukh38 (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Could I suggest you have a look at the Wikipedia:Tendentious editing page? PhilKnight (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"it seems that you donot want to spread quranic truth". Quite right, we don't. Just like we don't spread Biblical truth, Humanist truth, or Scientology truth, or any other brand of "truth". We write articles based on the coverage of topics in secondary reliable sources; religious texts are a primary source, so they are not suitable for basing articles on. If you want to propagandise for Islam, you're in the wrong place. Fences&Windows 23:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

sir, you are not spreading Quranic truth but in the name of Quran the wrong information, is it right?. If this is not the place to write truth of Quran then why the articles have portions with heading Quran?. Article muslim, Hadith have this potions and i have just quoted the Quranic verses regarding the truth of Hadith as per text of Quran.many articles are talking about Quran but not accepting the text of Quran as reliable source. Tawrat aricle has quotations of bible but you are telling that there is no place for biblical truth. If some body is writing about Quran minusing Quranic Text then How can a claim be correct if it is not verified by the Quranic text? please think on it. thanks--Farrukh38 (talk) 23:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

We want to write accurately about the Quran (not using the Quran). If secondary reliable sources contain information that contradicts what our articles say about the Quran, the hadiths, and other aspects of Muslim belief, then that's something we will want to correct. But you need to clearly show that the edits you are making are based on reliable sources by properly citing your sources, and you need to ensure that you stick to presenting a neutral summary of the sources. Please fully read WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV. You may also wish to talk to editors who are members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam and collaborate with them on editing articles. Fences&Windows 17:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Deconstructhis (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Respected sir, i have written the references of Quranic verses to differenciate Muslim and momin. In Hadith i have written down the references of quranic verses to tell the hadith as per Quran but you have reverted these references by saying " original research". thanks--Farrukh38 (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if Deconstructhis is a Sir, first of all. Second, one of the problems with your edits is that they are written in such a way that it is not clear whether you are citing something, or giving your own opinion, or even whether the text you add is appropriate to the subject: these are grammatical and mechanical (formatting) problems. This edit, for instance, is problematic and especially the first sentence is clearly ungrammatical, never mind the lack of references. One would need to cite secondary sources here. You are invited to explain your edits at the noticeboard and clear this up. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Farrukh38. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Quran as per Quran moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Quran as per Quran, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. ... discospinster _talk 20:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC) Previusly wrote an article of Alkitab which was deleted by wikipedea just enforcing that this is same as other articles, where as no one has yet written like that.Today also asking to give refrences of wikipedea article where as no one has written on wikipedea as per quran.The articles are about quran and not as per Quran. why wikipedea is promoting artcles about Quran and not as per Quran?

Quran has been explained with the help of its ayats

More refrences will be added to know the people what Al-Quran says about himself? this article is about a book and citation will be its contents not out side book.

Other editors have talked to you about your addition of original research, so I won't repeat it. If other writers and scholars have discussed what the Quran says about itself, then link to those sources instead of just copying the ayats. ... discospinster _talk 21:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

writing against Qurnic verses are reliable sources?

Is Wikipedea not for truth

If no any person has written about the verses of quran then how it be brought to link? People are writing about Quran which quranic verses are denying, let people know what quran has to say through its verses. its enough talking about quran which does not meet with quranic verses. ask writers to come and write for Quran and not their vein desires about quran.

August 2017

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia policies as you did at Wikipedia:No original research. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Verifiability shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

you mean Wikipedea is not to tell truth but stories written by researchers in the name of Quran? or to merge topics to any other topic which does not show any similarities but against the the will of wikipedea people.Why in the name of Quran people are writing against the text of Quran? Wikipedea is not a place to tell the truth but to write as per will of wikipedea...like it The reliable source theory ofwikipedea about any book is not applicable because the articles denying inhalt ofa book cannot be a reliable source.

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Farrukh38. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Quran as per Quran

Hello, Farrukh38. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Quran as per Quran".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Quran as per Quran

Hello, Farrukh38. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Quran as per Quran".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. kingboyk (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)