| Revision as of 21:52, 18 October 2006 editOpiner (talk | contribs)1,257 edits STOP with your templates with condescension tone. Like you say they are in history.← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:56, 18 October 2006 edit undoArrow740 (talk | contribs)7,908 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| ==World War Two== | ==World War Two== | ||
| I deleted your nuetrality warning; I think you would need to explain a little more on the ] why you consider such a warning is needed for the main facts section. It has been gone over literally hundreds of times and not many people would think the main facts are in dispute. Please say what it is you disagree with. Thanks. ] 21:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC) | I deleted your nuetrality warning; I think you would need to explain a little more on the ] why you consider such a warning is needed for the main facts section. It has been gone over literally hundreds of times and not many people would think the main facts are in dispute. Please say what it is you disagree with. Thanks. ] 21:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ==Quran and science== | |||
| Thanks for expressing yourself and reverting itaqallah's edit. I could really use help on this article if you have the time. Don't let itaqallah bully you. He attempts to use wikipedia rules to silence people who aren't brainwashed as he is, but it doesn't work. ] 21:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:56, 18 October 2006
Muhammad
When there is an active discussion over a section occuring within an article's talk page (in this case, the opening paragraph), it is advised that no edits which fall into the remit of this discussion be made. Please see the talk page before editing this section in the future. LinaMishima 00:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Also, when you cite copyright violations for removals, it is helpful for future editors to indicate the source being violated. LinaMishima 01:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out, you seem to be entirely correct, and the source books in question sound to still be in copyright :) Just remember to include details of the source in future edit summaries, as it makes it easier to remove said section if it reappears. LinaMishima 01:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Image:MuhammadSeal.jpg
thank you. i have responded. ITAQALLAH 09:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- per , do you still have any objection as to the nature of this image? if not, please proceed to remove it from IfD. ITAQALLAH 02:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- dear Opiner, although i understand that you may be frustrated by other peoples' opinion you believe to be false, please do not leave incivil remarks on my talk page about any editor in the future. this is a friendly notice, and i hope we can work collegially in the future. ITAQALLAH 11:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Dont know what incivil thing you're talking about, but I hold no grudge against you. Only asking that you should look at history before reverting because what you call incoherent might not be from the version you think it is. How would you feel if you wrote something perfectly coherent, then I, maybe not really knowing English, changed it to be relatively incoherent, then some third party reverted saying, Itaqallah wrote something incoherent? Thanks for friendly noticing.Opiner 11:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Why take our Moses?
Why you are taking out Moses from Muhammad article? Is that your prophet and we should not mention him? --- ابراهيم 08:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah you caught me Moses is my prophet, I am a Jew. I added Moses back. Now please read WP:NPOV and stop making the article say that Muhammad really had revelations.Opiner 08:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Term for evil CORRUPTION
Dear Irishpunktom, maybe you know, whats the Islamic term for the corruption of scriptures/monotheism in Judaism and Christianity?Opiner 07:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think you are talking about Tahrif, but, it's not evil. --Irishpunktom\ 20:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Muhammad as a diplomat
Opiner, you may find something of interest in this article.Proabivouac 09:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Im sorry, Ive been very busy and not really around much, but will examine this when i can. Thank you for the information.Opiner 07:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
World War Two
I deleted your nuetrality warning; I think you would need to explain a little more on the talk page why you consider such a warning is needed for the main facts section. It has been gone over literally hundreds of times and not many people would think the main facts are in dispute. Please say what it is you disagree with. Thanks. MarkThomas 21:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Quran and science
Thanks for expressing yourself and reverting itaqallah's edit. I could really use help on this article if you have the time. Don't let itaqallah bully you. He attempts to use wikipedia rules to silence people who aren't brainwashed as he is, but it doesn't work. Arrow740 21:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)