User talk:Sahab: Difference between revisions

To all new editors; if you need some assistance or guidance, please feel free to leave a message here and I will be more than happy to help.

New section

Core articles and translations

Sad that some of that editor's work had to be removed. I made this change in the 'welcome creation' page[1]. Hopefully now they'll talk to us first before starting any translation work. Tweak as you like. --Axius (talk) 10:27, 13 January 2014 (PST)

Cool, Will do. Yeah, it's too bad. But I don't understand why new translators go straight to the core articles. It's common sense that small paragraph summaries are useless without the full articles. It's also a shame that some of them feel the need to alter the original articles without keeping us informed. That comment he added about the "90%" completely undermines the entire article. --Sahabah (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2014 (PST)

Yea those changes/additions aren't good. Thanks for watching out for that.

What do you think about task 2 [2] (the one about new Overview articles which are all sourced). The last line of that task is about core articles. Some initial thoughts: This could mean that the current Core articles would have the "Articles/Article summaries" sections re-written so they are all referenced/sourced, and then we can still use the {{main|}} template to link those articles. They can then translate these Core articles and the {{main templates can just be removed from the text. What do you think. I'll think more about this. What we want is an sourced overview that is a stand alone article, and thats what people see when they click those links. The next issue is, what do we do with the article summaries. Article summaries could be moved further down on that page. Or they could be merged and we could only have them linked with the "main" template and they wont lose their visibility. This should help prevent more direct translations of these articles. We can leave notes like that for people who edit. We should still think about these overview articles though. They will also be great as first translations. I'll post here if I get any good ideas. --Axius (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2014 (PST)

The core articles were always meant to be an easy-to-read starting point for each topic, guiding readers to more information (basically hub pages with a lot more information). That was always the point, and they work brilliantly for that. They were not meant as stand-alone articles. So the problem is the summaries on the core articles are very brief and many aren't even summaries; they're introductions explaining what the full articles are about. To make them stand-alone articles, most of it would have to be rewritten and expanded. So they would no longer be short or easy-to-read. They would be long, complicated sections that are basically repeating already existing information and making our real articles a little pointless (since the info on those pages will already be on the core pages). --Sahabah (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2014 (PST)

"What we want is an sourced overview that is a stand alone article, and thats what people see when they click those links."

When has this ever been what we wanted? Every other article on the site is a stand-alone article, so why would we want the same for the core articles linked on the side? The whole reason we started those core articles was to provide a single page that would branch out to all the other important articles. Why would we want to put normal stand-alone articles on the side-bar? --Sahabah (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2014 (PST)

Ok well, you're not seeing it the way I'm seeing it. I would explain further but since I dont see myself working on this any time soon I'll just let it pass. If I work on such a sample sourced page I'll talk about this again. --Axius (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2014 (PST)

I don't see any harm in discussing it now. Besides, more core articles are on our tasks page. This means I'll possibly be creating more and it would be nice to know if that would be a waste of my time or not. So, to start, just tell me specifically what benefits do you think we will gain by whatever it is you're suggesting?

Also, answering your original question about task 2, I think we should stick to making it similar to the Wikipedia equivalent (i.e. a long but single page). Splitting topics and spreading it over multiple pages would involve too much work. I doubt any editor would finish a project like that, and even if they did, it would probably turn out less than satisfactory. It would also be repeating a lot of information for no apparent reason. Maybe you're thinking translators would benefit (which is what you seem to be saying). But I don't think that's the case. Translator would probably never finish translating it. Rather than translating a few normal articles, they'll start doing that for a few days then stop; leaving us with a lot of unfinished and useless pages. --Sahabah (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2014 (PST)

It would be too much work for me to try to make my point more clear without showing you an actual example of it. If you dont agree with that task, you can move it to my user page. Its ok with me. I can move it back if I get to it again. You can also save these comments in that task's description (hidden comment). --Axius (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2014 (PST)

News

We could get rid of the news section (Main_Page) or get the old RSS stuff back in but I dont know if it will be good since we dont control the auto generation. I tried to find the code we had before but I cant find it. --Axius (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2014 (PST)

Al-Q has some issues that he's dealing with at the mo, but will be back soon to regularly update the news. He should also be creating news pages for the few months he missed.--Sahabah (talk) 06:01, 17 January 2014 (PST)

Oh ok, cool. Good to know. --Axius (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2014 (PST)

Translating in italian

Hi Sahabah, I've finished to translate an article in italian: "the timeline of Muhammad".

I've also noted that you have translated "Women are deficient in intelligence and religion". With some little (very little) errors =) =). Can I help?

Hi Hood4. Of course. Your help would be greatly appreciated! Feel free to correct any errors you see. And thank you for the new translation. I will add it now to the front page. --Sahabah (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2014 (PST)

what happened this time

thats a strange legend- lightning and resurection . what was wrong in adding it? Saggy (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2014 (PST)

It's already a stretch having a section on miracles in an errors page. I think that new addition was weak and the page is better without it. --Sahabah (talk) 03:18, 9 February 2014 (PST)

How about dis- Pharoh doing crucifixion(anachronism)? or the sun or earth being the cause of shadows (i have details on this one because this eror depend on translations but error is there). which of the two do u like?Saggy (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2014 (PST)

Both of those sound great. Please make sure that they're not already on there somewhere (it's a long page so it is easy to accidentally add duplicates). --Sahabah (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2014 (PST)

I wanto start a logical errors article (diferent from contradictions and sc errors). How to put put sections in it?chapterwise?Saggy (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2014 (PST)

You can work on articles in a sandbox (e.g. User:Saggy/Sandbox, User:Saggy/Sandbox 2, User:Saggy/Sandbox 3). For chapters and other formatting, you can press the edit button at the top of any page and see it. For the main chapter headings it would be: ==chapter heading here== For a sub-heading it would be ===sub-heading here=== And so on. You should also take a look through the help pages. --Sahabah (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2014 (PST)

Theres a very common error ; rain brings trees of a dead land to life therefore people will be also brought back to life. Is it scintific or logical? Looking for more errors whcih are only logical. U have any? I listed some in my sandbox.--Saggy (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2014 (PST)

What verse is that? If I think of any I'll let you know. --Sahabah (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2014 (PST)

Here 7:57, 35:9,43:11,50:11,30:19 30:50.--Saggy (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2014 (PST)

okey its non-sequitur logical fallacy.--Saggy (talk) 09:17, 17 February 2014 (PST)

I have good numbers of verses. Shall I still make the article in sandbox or I make it as an article and use undercontruction template?--Saggy (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2014 (PST)

Hi. It's probably best to keep working on it in your sandbox. --Sahabah (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2014 (PST)

On second thoughts, a better idea would probably be to move your article to the main Sandbox URL like: WikiIslam:Sandbox/Name of your article here (e.g. WikiIslam:Sandbox/All about Islam. --Sahabah (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2014 (PST)

What after that?--Saggy (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2014 (PST)

Obviously it will stay there until it is completed. If it meets our quality standards and we think it is suitable for this site, then it will be moved to the mainspace. If it doesn't meet quality standards and/or is not suitable for this site, then it will stay there until it does or be deleted (depending on whether it shows potential). --Sahabah (talk) 08:27, 20 February 2014 (PST)

whats your opinion on this thing?[3] Cleanup and lead still left.--Saggy (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2014 (PST)

Good work in starting that article but I think it needs many more errors than just 5 or 6, before we can call it "logical errors in the Quran". The Skeptics Quran may be of help. They have categories like Absurdities, Contradictions (these should be checked against our list of contradictions, by the way). --Axius (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2014 (PST)

Yeah, I would say it's not very substantial ATM. I also think not all of them are very solid logical errors. The first error doesn't conclusively show Allah had to be "reminded by Jesus". To me that's clearly the author trying to make a point (i.e. Allah knows everything), and Allah's questioning is just theatrics. It doesn't necessarily indicate that Allah has bad memory.

Concerning the SAQ, I'd say it's a decent place to get a few ideas, but even critics have commented on how crappy that site is, taking things out of context etc. I'm not saying I agree with them, but our Science Errors page is in such a mess because an editor simply lifted everything from another site (i.e. AnsweringIslam). The last thing we want is to have history repeat itself and open us up to more criticism. --Sahabah (talk) 06:11, 21 February 2014 (PST)

Yes everything from other sites would have to be verified/evaluated carefully instead of being copy pasted straight away. We cant trust other sites and they're only additional sources of information to check.

Saggy, please make sure the claims are strong and cannot be questioned or interpreted in any other way (see Sahab's response). This isnt easy but it will be very worth it in the end if you work hard on every claim and get it right. So take your time, there's no hurry. These error pages are often linked from outside so its important to get them as strong as possible. Sahab is giving you advice here but if you need my help also in any way let me know. --Axius (talk) 09:51, 21 February 2014 (PST)

Yes d site is crappy. The translations thingo, most errors i got are mistranslated to try and hide them. For my article, can u both think of a better name so that we will not sit around wondering whether they are logical?--Saggy (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2014 (PST)

Oh, I forgot another q. Where to explain why a claim is strong? In my single article itself?--Saggy (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2014 (PST)

Yeah, a quick few lines or a paragraph should be fine in the page itself. About mistranslations; only those 3 main translations are to be used in our Errors pages. If the errors are not apparent in any of them, then that's too bad. Do not include those verses as errors. --Sahab (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2014 (PST)

1 more I started. Theres lots u can put here Im busy.--Saggy (talk) 08:09, 24 February 2014 (PST)

I echo Axius' reply to the same message when I say that I too am busy. We all have our own things to do already. --Sahab (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2014 (PST)

Edit toolbar

The new 'emoticons' dropdown next to Help is just a test (also, the new Info tab). I'm checking it out to see whats possible. The examples worked so thats good. I'll be back here after I find out more - lots of possibilities. I'd like to try to move all the stuff at the bottom to the top (so its in one place) and see if thats better than what we have right now. Although there's so much that can fit in this new toolbar, the bad side in my opinion is the extra clicks it takes to get to the item we want, but I guess there's no alternative. We just have to make sure the most often accessed stuff is reachable in the easiest/shortest way (the buttons for example, we can change those). I'll think about it. We can also make new icons for existing text stuff at the bottom. I'll have to look into this more and see.

Also noticed that around 1 out of 10 or 15 times, the new buttons wont show up in the toolbar. Good thing it doesnt happen often and we just need to click the 'edit' links again to reload the toolbar and then the new buttons usually show up. --Axius (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2014 (PST)

Nice. Looks good. The new edit toolbar you made yesterday is also cool. Much neater than the last one. --Sahab (talk) 08:16, 26 February 2014 (PST)

hi

hi. i am persian ex-muslim infidel and i want to build persian version of wikiislam (like russian) and be admin of it. how can i build new site?--Mudul (talk) 05:03, 26 February 2014 (PST)

Hi Mudul. Thank you for your interest in WikiIslam. We require about a front page's worth of translations (about 25-35 articles) before considering to launch a new sub-domain. You can find more information about translations at WikiIslam:Translations. One of the key rules to follow when translating these pre-sub-domain articles is that they should remain absolutely faithful to the original English work, retaining their scholarly tone and information. The reason why we like accurate translations to begin with is because it allows new editors in that particular language to understand the style, tone, quality, etc. that we expect in all languages.

However, that is not all. It also allows us to see if there are any users who would be suitable and willing to take on the responsibility of guiding the future direction of that sub-domain. To be an administrator at this site or one of its sub-domains, an editor must demonstrate that they fully understand and are willing to uphold the policies and guidelines concerning style, tone, and quality. We take a scholarly and rational approach in our conduct and criticisms (for example, we do not refer to each other as infidels). We also differ from other sites in the fact that we have stringent rules concerning the content of our articles. They should contain no politics (i.e. we do not support Israel or Palestine, we do not care about immigration, we do not care about nationalism, we do not care about East or West, we do not care about liberal or conservative politics etc.), they should contain no views about other religions or worldviews (i.e. we do not attack or endorse atheism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc.) and they should contain no opinions, only referenced facts.

Please feel free to start translating as many of the recommended articles as you want. I would also suggest that you read through our policies and guideline pages, FAQ and About Us page to get an idea of who we are and what we expect. Let me know if you have any further questions and I'll be more than happy to answer them. Thanks. --Sahab (talk) 05:44, 26 February 2014 (PST)

I was going to reply but you did a better job. We can add something like this to the FAQ (under 'Contributing'). --Axius (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2014 (PST)

Cool. Thanks! I'll take a look and try to add it in there. --Sahab (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2014 (PST)

ok. i accept. but where (what page) i am going to build my translation ? please get me link.--Mudul (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2014 (PST)

Instructions are here WikiIslam:Sandbox. Basically, you can work on articles in a user sandbox (e.g. User:Mudul/Sandbox, User:Mudul/Sandbox 2, User:Mudul/Sandbox 3), or in a WikiIslam sandbox like: WikiIslam:Sandbox/Name of your article here (e.g. WikiIslam:Sandbox/All about Islam. --Sahab (talk) 06:30, 26 February 2014 (PST)

i forgot to say: i am ex-wikipedian and i know the rules of editing of wiki page. i built too many wiki page in persian wikipedia and i am familiar with rules and guidelines and policies.--Mudul (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2014 (PST)

On second thoughts, let me know what article you have decided to begin with and I'll create the page for you. Concerning Wikipedia; we are not them and our policies and guidelines are different. So I would say it is imperative that you still read and familiarize yourself with our rules if you are serious about becoming an administrator or opening a sub-domain in the future. --Sahab (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2014 (PST)

ok.ok. i know this site isn't like wikipedia. i want to start with The Timeline of Muhammad--Mudul (talk) 06:50, 26 February 2014 (PST)

Use this link for now WikiIslam:Sandbox/The Timeline of Muhammad - Persian Translation. --Sahab (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2014 (PST)

excuse me. you don't know persian language. if any extremist muslim delete or decrease persian article, how do be aware ?--Mudul (talk) 08:29, 26 February 2014 (PST)

That's a good question. We simply use Google Translate to read the text. It isn't perfect, but it's excellent for spotting vandalism or differences. For example, if you read the conversation I had with this Czech editor, I spotted all the mistakes and changes very easily. Also, the first batch of translations will not need editing for anything other than typos. --Sahab (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2014 (PST)

ok. i don't want to insulting you or other contributers, but for example, "The Timeline of Muhammad" is very simple for persians. because they are muslims and almostly they know timelife of muhammad. if you give permission me, i will build very complex powerful articles for you on my idea.--Mudul (talk) 08:47, 26 February 2014 (PST)

No, I'm sorry. Only direct translations until we open up a sub-domain with an administrator. --Sahab (talk) 08:53, 26 February 2014 (PST)

ok. use encyclopedia of islam and quran. it's good.--Mudul (talk) 09:54, 26 February 2014 (PST)

Hi Mudul. I've removed those random-looking links. I have no idea what point you are trying to make with that last comment (if I didn't know better, I'd think it's some kind of spam). Anyway, according to GT, in your latest edit you've translated " and all the males who have reached puberty are beheaded on Muhammad's orders," as "And all adult men were beheaded at the command of Muhammad." Is that a correct reading of what you have translated? Because the point of that sentence was that the males who where beheaded were not all adults. They where "males who have reached puberty" i.e. a group that would have include children (reaching puberty doesn't make one an adult). --Sahab (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2014 (PST)

Mudul, also, preserve the pipe character in the table --> |. This separates data into columns. I fixed the two places where the columns broke. Please check this edit of mine to make sure I didnt break anything. --Axius (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2014 (PST)

that wasn't spam. it was download link from russian site. that site upload academic books. aren't you familiar with these site ? it's famous for university's student. and sorry for translating. it was my fault.--Mudul (talk) 10:39, 26 February 2014 (PST)

Can you tell me why you are removing text from references in your latest edit? --Sahab (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2014 (PST)

because i think it's nonsense and doesn't make any different.--Mudul (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2014 (PST)

We really don't care if you think its nonsense. But if that is you opinion, you should probably stop editing. Thanks. --Sahab (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2014 (PST)

Madul, exactly what is "nonsense" and why? Be specific. It is fully referenced. You are a new editor here and for you to come here and say that an article we have chosen for translation has some nonsense in it, is a little rude (especially without being specific what you're talking about). You can make the point but without saying its nonsense. Please be respectful to others on the site. See talk page guidelines. --Axius (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2014 (PST)

Madul, another example here shows that you have removed almost everything or summarized it. This is after Sahab told you that translation must be accurate. The only way to translate articles is to translate them accurately and if you dont want to do that, you have to let us know first and explain the reason in a rational way. --Axius (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2014 (PST)

i am so sorry. but i said before that your article is very simple. what does matter that for example "muhammad's saliva was mixed with my saliva" that i most wrote in article ??? i didn't want to insult others but you both are non-muslim american or european christian writers. you don't know how to critique islam. i was born as muslim. i was teach as moslem child in school and mosque. i know how to hit islam. but you both didn't critique islam as well. because you aren't familiar with islam. for example, who cares for 72 virgin? every moslem knows in heaven, huries are waiting them. why you built what article ? you didn't analyze object, just quote hadith and quran. that's not enough. you need some ex-muslim to improve you, like ali sina. he knows how to hit islam. that is why hi is success.--Mudul (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2014 (PST)

If you dont like the article or dont agree with it in some way, maybe its better to choose another article that you think can be translated directly, word for word. (like this one: http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_Muhammad).

Now you're saying we should not have the 72 virgins article which is pretty funny. This article is important because of the frequent denial of the topic by Muslims (for example). Ok, what should we have then? What is your idea of proper criticism of Islam? Please explain that. YOu can also give links to existing articles on other sites. Give links that you like so we can see what you think is good. We are one of the best websites for criticism of Islam. Read people's comments here: What People Say About WikiIslam. --Axius (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2014 (PST)

Actually, I'm an ex-Muslim agnostic Bangladeshi. Shows how much you know, doesn't it? No we don't need to change our style to that of ex-Muslims like Ali Sina. The fact that you would say that show you are not right for this site. We have a certain way of doing things and they have theirs. Personally, I would say our is a lot more effective than most other sites. --Sahab (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2014 (PST)

And I'm sorry Ax, but do you seriously think we can trust someone like him to work on translations for us? I certainly don't. And FYI Mudul, The fact that you are criticizing the 72 Virgins article (which I wrote) shows that at best you are clueless. --Sahab (talk) 15:59, 26 February 2014 (PST)

I know, I just want to see if he makes any points.

Mudul, if you like FFI or other websites you can write for them. But take a good look at our articles and then for other websites. And do give me a link for an article you think is good so I can see what is "good" in your opinion. Criticism of Islam is of many types. We have certain guidelines that we follow to maintain the quality of the content. --Axius (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2014 (PST)

because she's Charlatan. in iran, we have native Charlatan too. but nobody denials 72 virgin, because in my country people have arabic-persian quran.you can see also wikipedia or EI. our clerics says another type of lies to our people which isn't same with yours. for this, i want permission to build my articles on my opinion. --Mudul (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2014 (PST)

I asked you for examples of articles that you think are nice so please find those links. Everyone denies 72 virgins (perhaps they do not in Iran, but everywhere else they do). You are not familiar with the fact that these denials go on all the time on forums and websites. The 72 V is one top 10 ten visited article on our site so that should make you think why its important. As for your links for Wikipedia, go to the English Wikipedia and see how much information they have on the topic. Its a few lines and its basically a denial.

You're arguing here that a certain article is not that important. This argument is not valid because topics are important or not important to different audiences. All content is fine as long as it has references and follows guidelines. --Axius (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2014 (PST)

Exactly. This is not an Iranian site. It is a universal site that caters to everyone. So his criticism of the 72 virgins article is ridiculous and invalid. If a critic has to ask why that page was ever made, you know there's something wrong. And it's not an east/west thing because not all Muslim countries have a large number of Arabic speakers and there are plenty of non-Muslim and non-western countries too (Africa/Asia). --Sahab (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2014 (PST)

persian isn't international language, so visitor for my articles just came through iran. english article's belongs to you, persian's belongs to me. and about arab speaking: they know about houris. that's why they do suicide missions like 9/11 ?--Mudul (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2014 (PST)

Ok, so what kind of things would you have on the Persian site? What kind of articles would you write? Can you explain? And once again, can you give examples of pages on other websites you like? I have asked you multiple times. Please find some good links for us otherwise your arguement that material on this site does not "critique islam as well" is invalid. So give specific example and be specific.

I can write for hours on why I think certain articles on this site are not really important, but it wouldnt be a good use of my time. They are all important. The English Wikipedia has 4 million articles and importance for each of them varies. --Axius (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2014 (PST)

then let me build just one article, to show you which article is in my mind.--Mudul (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2014 (PST)

No, that shouldnt be done at this point without further discussion with us and unless we come to a resolution. You have pointed out various authors that you think do it right and we said that we do it differently. If you cant see that difference, I doubt your work will be a good fit for our site and that is an important issue.

The only way you can contribute is to do a translation and even that we'll have to be very careful about as Sahab has pointed out so even that is a remote possibility.

I'm asking you for the 4th time for a specific example of criticism of Islam (on another site) that you think is good. Also note that you can write for many other websites but if you dont agree with our English content I dont think you can contribute to our site and you can find other websites that you agree with and help them out in translations. --Axius (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2014 (PST)

Also we cannot understand persian and would have to use a translator. I dont think its worth the effort for us since you haven't addressed many of the points we raised. So at this point as Sahab said I dont think you are a good fit for our site. Again you are welcome to contact other websites and help them out but for us, we need editors who can at least give an example of "good criticism of Islam", or point out specific problems within articles, before they can say that this site isnt good in some way. --Axius (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2014 (PST)

you can see this and this. --Mudul (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2014 (PST)

Sorry we dont understand persian. Do you have any English articles you have written that I can look at? You can make that stuff on blogs, the same kinds you linked but as I mentioned if you dont like our English content, there's only a small possibility that your persian writing will be a good fit for our site. --Axius (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2014 (PST)

So here's a Google translate for the first link. Lets see what it says. [4]. And you said "you didn't analyze object, just quote hadith and quran." while this link has 3 screen captures of quotes. We quote and analyze too. We have certain pages that only have quotes and everything else basically uses quotes and analyzes them. --Axius (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2014 (PST)

Boko Haram

this is militia groups, which kills student and infidel. can i build an article (english) for this group?--Mudul (talk) 10:44, 26 February 2014 (PST)

Yes, you can work on articles in a user sandbox (e.g. User:Mudul/Sandbox, User:Mudul/Sandbox 2, User:Mudul/Sandbox 3), or in a WikiIslam sandbox like: WikiIslam:Sandbox/Name of your article here (e.g. WikiIslam:Sandbox/Boko Haram). --Sahab (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2014 (PST)