User talk:Asmith

Hello. Can you tell me if there is any score guide? Guillotino (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

See the article scoring rubric here: https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Template:QualityScore. Going to post this on your talk page as well. IbnPinker (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for making me an editor here Alan. Can I create articles here now?-Raman (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Glad to have you on board. You can submit ideas for articles but we will need to see more contributions from you, and then we will grant you that privilege. --Asmith (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey ASmith. We talked via email a week or two back.

I'm getting around WikiIslam, and I noticed that the novice users page creation permissions appear to be set up incorrectly.

Recall WikiIslam:Sandbox,

You can also create sandboxes under your username such as User:Your username/Sandbox 1 if you expect yourself to be the only editor of the page.

I go to User:Graves/Sandbox_1, which I cannot edit. If I go to https://wikiislam.net/wiki/User:Graves/Sandbox_1&action=edit , I get

You do not have permission to create this page, for the following reason: You do not have permission to create new pages.

The same applies for UNcreated (yet) Wiki sandbox pages such as WikiIslam:Sandbox/Hello

HOWEVER, this isn't the case for,

• User_talk:Graves/Sandbox_1 (user talk sandbox page - NOTICE, not the User:Graves/Sandbox_1 )
• User_talk:Asmith/Sandbox_1 (yours, not mine, user talk sandbox page)
• WikiIslam:Sandbox/Muslimské_statistiky (someone's written, already created, sandbox page)
• User:Asmith (yes, I can edit your user-page page)

I think this is a mis-confuration, so I let you know.

Graves (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. It needs to be fixed and I updated the public sandbox for now to make it clear that new users should request these pages to be made for them for now (once made, new users can edit these without admin approval). I made three of them for you at your preferred url: https://wikiislam.net/wiki/User:Graves/Sandbox_1, https://wikiislam.net/wiki/User:Graves/Sandbox_2, https://wikiislam.net/wiki/User:Graves/Sandbox_3

Let me know if you need anything else. IbnPinker (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I need to upload an image for an upcoming article. I cannot upload images directly to WikiIslam (no permissions), so I temporarily mirrored it here, https://ibb.co/KrPWJzm

Can one of the admins upload it to WikiIslam? Thanks Graves (talk) 09:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Done. The file name is Al-Bari-page.png . Do you have a link to the Discord? The Discord would be the best way to discuss such things imo.--Asmith (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi ASmith. I'd be interested in joining the Discord server, but I don't have a link. Can you send one to the email address I registered with (to keep it discreet)? Thanks.

And thanks for uploading the image. Graves (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I would like to create an article on Spinning Wheel. Regarding the propaganda claim that Islamic science invented the spinning wheel. I have gathered many source that expose this claim. Can you start a blank article or a sandbox? I am also not able to make a sandbox. Guillotino (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Guillotino. Thank you for your idea, but after discussion with out team we came to the conclusion that this does not fit our scope. Please see our page WikiIslam:Scope and Article Relevance. This is a subject that would be better discussed on our Discord I think, do you have a link?--Asmith (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

No I dont have any Discord link. Can you give it? Guillotino (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you create an article for Historical Errors? There are many errors. Guillotino (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

You can find the article here Historical Errors in the Qur'an. Thanks!--Asmith (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

We actually already have a section on historical errors in the scientific errors in the Quran page, so in that case this would lead to a lot duplication. I think it has always worked well on the scientific errors page because people refer to it for all the strong Quranic factual errors in one convenient page (whether natural world or history). Regarding the one about the Kaaba as a place of safety that was deleted, I think you were probably in any case right to remove it for others reasons, which is that one of the verses quoted, Q. 5:97 says "Allah made the Ka'ba, the Sacred House, an asylum of security [haram, forbidden] for men, as also the Sacred Months". Of course, no-one would consider this as a prophecy that the sacred months would never be violated, since that was already happening, so similarly with the Kaaba, Muslims would just say this was one of its appointed purposes, not a promise of divine protection nor a prophecy.Lightyears (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I know it's there, but I think it might be useful to move it out to another page. That article is already big enough. I think the the best course is this: the historical errors should be summarized on the scientific errors page, and then a redirect should be placed to the historical errors page. That is the general Wikipedia standard operating procedure, I think it would fit here.--Asmith (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Specifically I think we'd leave a few important examples of historical errors on the scientific errors page along w a summary of the section and then link at the top to the new page where we could proceed to list say dozens of historical errors. IbnPinker (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Pending any other arguments I'll go ahead and implement this tomorrow. IbnPinker (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

That sounds a good approach. If I may recommend which ones to move from (rather than having also on) the sci errors page to the new historical errors page, it'd be the less interesting or famous ones which a visitor on the fence might more easily rationalise away as a mere absense of evidence thing or alternative meaning apologetics: Samaritans in ancient Egypt, John the Baptist's original name; Supernatural destruction of cities; Humans lived hundreds of years, Ancient mosque in Jerusalem. That would leave ones that people often mention as effecting them plus one or two that are quite new and need good exposure: Wall of iron; Mary part of the trinity; Mary and Miriam (popular and significant, though somewhat divides academics); Ezra; David invented coats of mail (very strong but quite new, needs more exposure); crucifixions in ancient Egypt (ditto); Singular Pharaoh; The three Noah's flood sections (a major topic - possibly could become even more concise on this page. The oven boiled is a pretty strong new point that needs the exposure). It's so useful to be able to just share one link rather than two for all types of factual errors (only a small percentage of people would click through to the main historical errors page). I do so regularly, as do countless others, so I'm glad the historical stuff is not being moved completely.Lightyears (talk) 10:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Great points you made; implemented the change as you suggested. The pages can evolve on their own now and if we keep around 10 solid ones on the scientific errors page, that should suffice the sharing-one-link purpose. IbnPinker (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I replaced a couple of recent hard coded hadith refs with the templates. There is a page which details how to cite the various alternative hadith referencing systems available on quranx (such as the Dar-us-Salam system) using the templates. I can never remember which page it is at first so here's the link https://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Source_Editing#Referencing_Hadith It seems there are lots of legacy al-Tirmidhi hard coded refs around the site (often with sunnah.com's erroneous book numbers) but it would take a long time to replace those with the templates. Lightyears (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Which pages had the hard-coded hadith references?--Asmith (talk) 01:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)