User talk:Axius

Hi AX. When someone submits a new testimony, could you check to see if they have left an email at the bottom? It is to do with Notes #1 on the submission form that says:

"Consider providing a contact email address at the bottom of your testimony. If an email address is not submitted, then there may be difficulty in getting information altered/removed later on if such a request is made. Your email address will be wiped from the page history before being added to the wiki mainspace, meaning only administrators will be able to view it."

The best thing to do is delete the email address and then wipe it from the history with an explanation (e.g. "Email (as per Notes #1 on the form)") so we know where to look if they ever contact us. These emails could be very private and I don't think they should be left out in the public for too long. --Sahab (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2014 (PST)

Yea you're right they should not be left there for long. I'll try to keep an eye on it. We do database compaction sometimes so that removes the deleted page so maybe an option is to keep the emails locally on the computer or saved in an email account in a draft email, or we just remove the requirement of adding the email, or we ask them to send us an email when they submit their testimony so we have it privately on record. That will be the easiest for us. On another note could you check your email? --Axius (talk | contribs) 04:42, 6 December 2014 (PST)

Thanks Ax, I'm reading it now. --Sahab (talk) 07:13, 6 December 2014 (PST)

Hi Ax. That thing about "Porkistani/P*ki Muslims" was a mistake but not about 911. It's a racial slur (akin to the "N" word for blacks) against South Asians. This guy is clearly not an Arab, because an Arab would know the difference between my race and his. Mixing up Arabs with South Asians does happen, but it's usually troglodytes of European ancestry that do it. And it is mostly them who equate "p*ki" with "Muslim". I just thought I'd make you aware because I think America is the exception, and that word is not considered an insult over there. So obviously anything submitted to the site (even comments on talk pages) that contains that word would be going against the policies. Actually, any insults at all against race/ethnicity/nationality (e.g. "Porkistani") is against the policies.

Anyways, that "testimony" as a whole is crazy. Wow. So many calls for genocide in such a few amount of words. And lol at the "You need to eat bacon... to prove that you are no longer a Muslim" line. I'm a vegan, so with that line of thinking, it would mean that I must still be an under-cover Muslim. --Sahab (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2015 (PST)

LOL. I just did an IP search and I was right. Whoever submitted that testimony did it from Western Europe. That's a long way from Oman (where he claims to originate) and Hong Kong (where he claims to now live). --Sahab (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2015 (PST)

Yea he mixed them up (said it was Pakistanis who did 9/11 when it was mostly people from Saudi arabia). Yea the bacon/pork requirement was strange. Oh I see so the IP did not match the locations. Good catch. --Axius (talk | contribs) 12:37, 4 January 2015 (PST)

Hi Axius, can we have an article on Mia Khalifa? She is in the news.Saggy (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2015 (PST)

If it was appropriate for the site sure, but we would need someone to do it. According to Wikipedia she is/was not a Muslim ([1] unverified) so if its thats true we would probably not have the article. --Axius (talk | contribs) 18:52, 10 January 2015 (PST)

Yeah. Apparently, she was born into a Muslim family but is a Christian now. So a page about a porn star who was simply born to Muslims wouldn't be appropriate. There are a lot of Middle-Eastern pornstars, and it's a fair bet that the majority of them are from a Muslim background. This is nothing extraordinary. At best, the Freedom of Speech (links) page should have a link added under the US section. But nothing more. --Sahab (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2015 (PST)

Hi Ax. I don't understand why you added this task. I think it is a pretty terrible idea. Those two pages have two distinct purposes, so merging them makes no sense. It would in fact make it harder for readers to use to counter Muslim arguments, make the page ridiculously long, AND make our other pedophilia pages redundant (if you want to merge the "Refutation of Modern Apologetics Against Aisha's Age" with the "Responses to Apologetics: Muhammad and Aisha" page, then why not also merge the Aisha's Age of Consummation" page with the "Responses to Apologetics: Muhammad and Aisha" page? It's the exact same situation).

The Refutation of Modern Apologetics Against Aisha's Age page refutes only a single, stand-alone apologetic argument. This argument is basically, "Some Islamic sources say Aisha was aged 12, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 21 when Muhammad had sex with her". If you look at the Responses to Apologetics: Muhammad and Aisha page, this is argument number six. So basically what your new task is saying is to copy/paste that detailed, long and well-crafted stand-alone article under argument number six. I don't understand why you would even consider that a viable option. That one argument (that the hadith say Aisha was older) is practically as long as the page you want to merge it with, and that page contains 20+ different arguments.

Think about it from a reader's view: that's like a science teacher (WikiIslam) having a creationist student (Muslim) question one single aspect of evolutionary theory (Muhammad's pedophilia), but rather than give a detailed rebuttal to that single objection (Aisha's age according to hadith), the teacher slaps a 1000 page encyclopedia about the evolutionary theory in front of him and tells him to find the answer in there somewhere.

And like I mentioned earlier, merging this article also begs the question; why not merge every page concerning Mo and Aisha into that one page? Argument number 4 is "The hadiths do not say Muhammad had sex with Aisha when she was 9. They have been poorly translated", so why not delete the "The Meaning of Consummate" page and copy/paste that into "Responses to Apologetics: Muhammad and Aisha" too? --Sahab (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2015 (PST)

The only reason I can think of is that both titles have similar words in them ("Refutation/Response" and "Apologetics"). If that's the case, then only a name change is needed to more accurately reflect the topics of the pages. TBH not only does "Refutation of Modern Apologetics Against Aisha's Age" need its name changed, but so does the "Aisha's Age of Consummation" page. I remember you previously said you preferred to keep the title as it is simply because that's an early article. However, the "Aisha's Age of Consummation" page has a misleading title as its content is not really about Aisha's age of consummation. It's about whether or not Mo can be classed as a pedophile. "Refutation of Modern Apologetics Against Aisha's Age" should be renamed "Aisha's Age of Consummation" because that IS the actual topic of the page. And "Aisha's Age of Consummation" should be renamed "Muhammad and Pedophilia" or something like that. --Sahab (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2015 (PST)

"Muhammad and the Clinical Definition of Pedophilia" is a good name. I'll rename these pages when I can. There is a fair bit of redirecting that I will also have to do. Also wanted to add that if I am correct about the reason, then as administrators we must base our decisions off more than a cursory glance at the title of a page. A merge of those two pages would have big repercussions, not least to the logical structure and quality of the site. --Sahab (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2015 (PST)

Oh. Yea I totally missed that the title was "Responses to ... Aisha's Age". So it was only the issue of her age for that title. I think whoever was doing the task would have noticed this before they started the task. Thanks for noticing that. I'll look into this again later.

Thanks for fixing those redirects. I wish there was a bot that could fix it. I'll make that a task in a new section for things that could be done by bots. --Axius (talk | contribs) 02:19, 2 March 2015 (PST)

Cool. Yeah, sometimes finding where exactly the inline links are within a page can be hard. You have to go over the page text a couple of times before noticing it. --Sahab (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2015 (PST)

I do a CTRL-F for the link's partial/full name or the page's name. Google chrome has good search highlighting features. --Axius (talk | contribs) 03:10, 2 March 2015 (PST)

Thanks Ax. I just tried that and it works great. --Sahab (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2015 (PST)

Webcitation just failed caching my link. My other links'cache are ok.

Oh. Yea it failed mine too for that same link. --Axius (talk | contribs) 05:23, 14 March 2015 (PDT)

Heitri2. It does that on pages because they respect the "norobot" txt or something. On the other hand, Archive.is archives the page regardless, so that site can be used instead. We mention both services here. And really, this information should be known to editors before they start editing links in pages. --Sahab (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2015 (PDT)

Hi! I think I've finished translating the article Health Effects of Islamic Dress into Spanish as WikiIslam:Sandbox/Efectos sobre la Salud de la Vestimenta Islámica. Any suggestions will be welcomed for next tasks. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles69 (talk • contribs) (Remember to sign your comments)

Excellent. Thanks! I will wait for Sahab for finalizing this. 72 virgins is a great choice and any others from the list

Sahab, help! I would try to do it but I'll miss some steps. --Axius (talk | contribs) 05:34, 18 March 2015 (PDT)

I'll go for those chicks ;).--Charles69 (talk) 05:57, 18 March 2015 (PDT)

Quran verse describes the sun and the moon in parallel orbits, as Quran verse 36:40 says, "It is not allowable for the sun to reach the moon, nor does the night overtake the day, but each, in an orbit, is swimming." Quran never ever said that, the earth moves or travels.

See Also: http://www.islam-watch.org/SyedKamranMirza/Erroneous-Science-and-Contradictions-in-Quran.htm AND http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Qur%27anic_scientific_foreknowledge (THIS SITE EXPLAINS THE CLAIMED FOREKNOWLEDE IS FALSE AND ALSO GIVES REFERENCES TO OTHER SITES)--AAA (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2015 (PDT)

We have this article on the topic. Check it out: [2].

Thanks for the links. I did not know about the "heavy clouds" errors in the Quran. I'll add it to our tasks page to review and add if suitable. --Axius (talk | contribs) 19:34, 1 June 2015 (PDT)

Islam says that even the almighty Allah can change his mind. It's contradictory because Islam claims Allah knows and creates everything.--AAA (talk) 10:27, 5 July 2015 (PDT)

• Dr. Keith Moore and the Islamic additions (in Uzbek)

Hi! How are you doing? Excuse my ignorance, I'm having trouble with the placement of this quote. Please, help[3] Source: [4] --Vacuum (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2015 :(PDT)

Sorry I've been more busy than usual. Give me a few days and I'll look into it. --Axius (talk | contribs) 14:09, 14 June 2015 (PDT)

I got it. Thank you. --Vacuum (talk) 05:53, 15 June 2015 (PDT)

• Ideas

I think we should create a (hub) page on Pareidolia and attach references to Islamic "sign miracles", such as [5]; [6]; [7]; --Vacuum (talk) 09:45, 16 June 2015 (PDT)

We have it: Pareidolia. --Axius (talk | contribs) 02:26, 24 June 2015 (PDT)

Hi again. I went through tafsirs for "The Sun is folded up/it is flat disk" claim which was challenged by somebody on the scientific errors page some time ago. The tafsirs make even more errors on this topic [8] [9]. So this can go into the QHS article? and link the relevant section of Scientific Errors in Quran to it? Saggy (talk) 01:45, 26 July 2015 (PDT)

You can add it to the Tasks page or a Sandbox page. --Axius (talk | contribs) 06:47, 26 July 2015 (PDT)

Hi! I asked this to Sahab before but since he has been inactive, I ask you to check these two articles already finished: Misinterpreted Qur'anic Verses and Pedophilia in the Qur'an. Thanks! Aelu (talk) 09:03, 28 August 2015 (PDT)

I probably didnt do as good as a job that Sahab does but I think I got it right: Pedofilia en el Corán and Versos coránicos malinterpretados. Thank you!

I noticed these two words spelled differently. I assume thats how its supposed to be: Coránicas [10] 2nd bullet / coránicos [11] (also note, small capitals is used for the 2nd word). --Axius (talk | contribs) 17:41, 28 August 2015 (PDT)

Yeah, they're spelled correctly, and thank you heheh :) -Aelu (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2015 (PDT)

Hi Axius, I've translated a new article, it's the "fastest growing religion".