User talk:Saggy: Difference between revisions

→‎QHS edits: new section
(→‎QHS edits: new section)
Line 332: Line 332:
:The woman overlooked that Quran makes the claim but Bible does not. The image of a heavener with a harp is at best a pop culture thing derived from that verse. The sentence is still too weird. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 06:48, 11 August 2014 (PDT)
:The woman overlooked that Quran makes the claim but Bible does not. The image of a heavener with a harp is at best a pop culture thing derived from that verse. The sentence is still too weird. [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 06:48, 11 August 2014 (PDT)
::She did not overlook it. That was exactly her point. She is claiming Muslims view the idea of virgins in heaven much the same as Christians view wings and a harp i.e. it's a made-up thing that no practising Christian actually believes. Okay, so you think that sentence is "weird", but that does not explain why you think adding pointless trivia to the page is "fixing it", nor does it explain why you think your edit made it less "weird" (if it wasn't linguistically weird to begin with, it certainly was afterwards). We are not contesting her claim that the wings and harp thing is a myth because she is right, so there is nothing more needed to be said about that. What we are doing is pointing out ''how'' she is wrong.[[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 07:22, 11 August 2014 (PDT)
::She did not overlook it. That was exactly her point. She is claiming Muslims view the idea of virgins in heaven much the same as Christians view wings and a harp i.e. it's a made-up thing that no practising Christian actually believes. Okay, so you think that sentence is "weird", but that does not explain why you think adding pointless trivia to the page is "fixing it", nor does it explain why you think your edit made it less "weird" (if it wasn't linguistically weird to begin with, it certainly was afterwards). We are not contesting her claim that the wings and harp thing is a myth because she is right, so there is nothing more needed to be said about that. What we are doing is pointing out ''how'' she is wrong.[[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 07:22, 11 August 2014 (PDT)
== QHS edits ==
Your edit here [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Animals&diff=109254&oldid=109252]. This is Ritual slaughter. It applies to all Abrahamic religions. I agree killing an animal with a knife like this is painful for the animal but the animal's meat is consumed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice#Abrahamic_traditions.
So tell me why those hadiths should stay here and how they fit with the other content of the page.
For the 2nd edit, [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Cosmology&diff=109255&oldid=109253]
This belongs in Creationism more than it does in Cosmology. Is there anything specific about cosmology mentioned in that quote? Plus this quote has round brackets '(' and you've used double triangular brackets '<'.
So can you explain? You have a few strikes before I will ask you to abandon all main space editing as I do not have the time to evaluate incorrect edits on an on-going basis, from a regular editor. Unfortunately I do not have the time for this at the moment and this will be the case for a long time. You have had enough time on this website to know that you should evaluate your edits carefully and its like 100% of them have to be evaluated because 50% of them are incorrect and have to be reverted and I'm not able to have that much time. The equivalent of this is having someone work in an office but he's been here for a while and even then 50% of all his tasks are incorrect. Its nice that you contribute but I am not able to evaluate all of this edits like this. I can understand Sahab's desire for quality. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] <span style="font-size:88%">([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]])</span> 22:01, 14 August 2014 (PDT)
Autochecked users, Bureaucrats, Editors, oversight, recentchangescleanup, Reviewers, rollback, Administrators
19,746

edits