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".

Ok. thanks. I think it needs this section Vedi anche to be updated like other articles. Also it needs the Italian category.

Also I think this section is not complete [12]. --Axius (talk | contribs) 10:40, 19 September 2015 (PDT)

Hi Axius, I just amended the two articles, but I don't know how to translate the short phrase near the hub content in these articles, in the section "Vedi anche"... Thank you very much for underlining my errors and oversights.

Ok. I made a few other fixes. I will add these steps to the Check-list. I was able to see the fixes after looking at another previously translated article and comparing the main elements (headings, formatting etc).

I have linked the article in the various places now (main page, Italian articles and added a link from the English article).

For References, is it "Riferimenti" or "Referenze"? The first term is used here [13]. --Axius (talk | contribs) 13:29, 20 September 2015 (PDT)

Hi, both of the terms could be used, but in this case it's better to use "Riferimenti". I'll use it in future articles. I've also translated the article of "Taqiyya". but I can't translate the "Lying (Primary Sources)" of that page. But.. it seems that I've accidentaly deleted (?) the original in english...

The Italian version is saved and it can be moved into a new title called Taqiyya-it (following the example of Sunnah-fr). I have created the new page now.

For 'Lying (Primary Sources)' we can make a new heading called 'Inglese' and list the EN link there. I did that too. --Axius (talk | contribs) 16:19, 21 September 2015 (PDT)

Hi, I translate the article "Pagan Origins of Islam" here in my sandbox : http://wikiislam.net/wiki/User:Maxime/Sandbox_1, if you can tell me if the article is good or to correct, thanks. --Maxime (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2015 (PDT)

Looks good, I made a few fixes diff. I added the translation links and category. I also changed the 'Références' heading after seeing thats the word used in a previous translation. Is that correct, or should it be 'References'?

Let me know the final Page title and I will move it to the new title and make the various links. --Axius (talk | contribs) 13:55, 20 September 2015 (PDT)

Hi, yes you were right to correct "Reference" to "Références", I made the last corrections to franchify the whole article. It is now ready and the title of translation will be simply "Les origines païennes de l'Islam", thanks. --Maxime (talk) 05:20, 21 September 2015 (PDT)

Ok. I created the page and linked it now. Thank you! --Axius (talk | contribs) 16:34, 21 September 2015 (PDT)

Please authorise my edit here: http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Rape_in_Islam&action=history

I added a ref and archived it. |You will find it useful--92.12.197.254 11:26, 27 September 2015 (PDT)

Does that hadith add something new to that page? I see there are other hadiths that mention the same kind of thing (an explanation about 4:24). So could you go over the page and look at the existing sources and compare it to the hadith (Sunan Abu Dawud - Book 12, Hadith 110) you're linking? --Axius (talk | contribs) 14:40, 27 September 2015 (PDT)

That hadith was missing the source and translation. I gave a reference. Thats all--92.12.197.254 10:58, 3 October 2015 (PDT)

I've talked [14] to Sahab about sunnah.com and he said we can use it if no other source is available. So I would rather use that instead of quranx.com. We have to use websites that Muslims would be less likely to reject (and those with more authority) so for that reason we should use sunnah.com. I think this is the link for that hadith [15].

I agree it would be nice to add the reference (because USC.edu now is missing some of the hadith pages). --Axius (talk | contribs) 16:57, 3 October 2015 (PDT)

Muslims have cited the following Qur'anic verse as miraculous, "After that (Allah) spread the Earth out (dahaha: from the verb 'daha')" [Quran 79:30]. This verse has been interpreted by many Muslims as foreshadowing the concept that the figure of the Earth has an oblate ellipsoid shape. Kamel Ben Salem's explanation for this is that "the ancient exegetes had earlier explained the Arabic verb (dahaha) by (has flattened it)" but that "the origin of this verb is found in the word (Ud-hiya)", which means "egg of ostrich", thus "the Earth would look like an ostrich’s egg" which is accurate with scientific data that confirms that the Earth is slightly flat at the poles very similarly to the shape of the egg of an ostrich. Rashad Khalifa alternatively translated the verse as: "he made the earth egg-shaped." However, this Muslim argument for scientific foreknowledge in the Qur'an is built on a popular misconception known as the "Myth of the Flat Earth". Knowledge of a spherical Earth has existed since the ancient Greeks. Hence the argument's attempt to present this piece of information as foreknowledge is inaccurate. Also the Earth is an oblate spheroid whereas an ostrich egg is a prolate spheroid.

The claim that the term "daha" refers to an "ostrich egg" is also disputed. The premise that the term "ud-hiya" is the root of the word "daha" is inconsistent with the fact that most Arabic words have a triconsonantal root. This premise is also not supported by the classical lexicons of the Arabic language. Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon, for example, reports that the term "daha" is rooted in the triconsonantal root, dal-ha-waw. The term "ud-hiya", on the other hand, is only a cognate of the word "daha". It is also noted in the entry for the term "daha" in Lane's lexicon that the word is used to signify any surface that has been spread out or flattened. Lane's lexicon also provides an example of the usage of the word with the following statement, "also, said of an ostrich, he expanded, and made wide, with his foot, or leg, the place where he was about to deposit his eggs". In a consistent manner, "udhiya" is defined as "The place of the laying of eggs, and of the hatching thereof, of the ostrich in the sand". It is not known whether this example, involving an ostrich and its egg, is the cause of the mistranslation of "daha" as an "ostrich egg".--AAA (talk) 12:34, 31 October 2015 (PDT)

Ok, you can put this on a temporary user sandbox page for later use. --Axius (talk | contribs) 05:09, 1 November 2015 (PST)

Here's a source for it: http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/earth_egg.html --AAA (talk) 08:55, 1 November 2015 (PST)

Hi Axius,

Thank you. Yes, I think that's the approach I need. I apologize for the editing and re-editing unconvinience, I'm trying to improve my lack of vocabularies but the meaning is alike over time. I just want to make the message got better, comprehensively understandable for readers. Next time I'll make sure the edit is fix and final for review. Anyway, this far I can see a translation into Bahasa Indonesia here but the task is not completed yet for public view. While actually in my priority ofcourse, regarding the number of Indonesian muslims majority don't speak English, please, would you consider opening sub domain for it? I will learn to contribute the translation into Bahasa; Please kindly advice. Also thanks for all the good works you and the team have done, Wikiislam has been my prime preference all these time.

Sincerely, Gon

Ok, no problem. Yea sure, you can edit the page I linked for your testimony. You could edit that page in English where you could write a short account and then you could create another page in Indonesian (bahasa) e.g. User:Goncandu/Mengapa saya meninggalkan Islam (I used Google translate for 'Why I left Islam') and write your story in much more detail in Bahasa.

We only have one page in Indonesian ([16]) which is sad considering its a big Muslim country, one of the most populous in fact. It is critical to reach people there.

A sub-domain can opened after 25 translated articles and someone who can take care of the site (more information here [17]).

For now just focus on completing the article you're working on, and the testimonies of leaving Islam (if you dont want to write them thats fine too; whatever you want to do) and next choose an article you'd like to translate (WikiIslam:Translations#Articles_to_Translate) and let me know its title and I can guide you from there. --Axius (talk | contribs) 09:05, 14 November 2015 (PST)

Hi

I find this labyrinth depressing. It is difficult to navigate. I can't save as I go along translating unlike all common word editors. If this feature is available I sure don't see it. It would be good if translators like me can focus on the translation works only and not spending so much time trying to understand rules and regulations (which is not that clear), functions and searching and clicking everywhere to find things. Maybe it is just me but ... Sorry. I was trying to be honest.

I'll help you with any questions you have. You can save as you go. I had a question, what article do you want to translate? I will then give you further directions.

I want to stress that the translation must be accurate and match the english version. This is very important. I'll quote it:

One of the key rules to follow when translating these pre-sub-domain articles is that they should always remain absolutely faithful to the original English work, retaining their scholarly tone and information. The reason for accurate translations to begin with is that it allows new editors in that particular language to understand the style, tone, and quality that is expected in all languages.

--Axius (talk | contribs) 05:17, 18 November 2015 (PST)