User talk:Dr. Dolittle

I think you might want to take some of your ideas re: Islam to the talk page before making those edits. PFoster 14:25, 27 December 2007 (EST)

deleting without any message of 'temporal lob epilepsy'
Forgotten to let me know ? Dr. Dolittle 06:48, 29 December 2007 (EST)

And of course it is an attack ad hominem when I say that this article is too much an attack on the beloved "prophet" Muhammed on this "rational"wiki.

Temporal-lobe epilepsy: Epilepsy that is characterized by abnormal electrical activity in the temporal lobe of the brain. This activity does not cause grand mal seizures; rather, it causes unusual behaviors and patterns of cognition. Temporal lobe epilepsy may, for example, cause sudden outbursts of unexpected aggression or agitation, or it may be characterized by aura-like phenomena.

Temporal-lobe epilepsy is often mentioned as a declaration of so called revelations. Especially because in the hadith is written how at one time Muhammed recieved his "divine" messages.

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=18026

Dr. Dolittle 06:56, 29 December 2007 (EST)

That made no sense, May I ask why you have such a fixation with this subject? 07:05, 29 December 2007 (EST)
 * How do you declare those "revelations" ? Dr. Dolittle 07:11, 29 December 2007 (EST)
 * What? 07:12, 29 December 2007 (EST)
 * Read the article, before you want to delete it. Dr. Dolittle 07:15, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Oh, and just fyi, Definition of Temporal-lobe epilepsy as in Tabers medical dictionary: temporal lobe epilepsy

A seizure disorder originating in a temporal lobe of the brain.

SYMPTOMS Temporal lobe seizures produce one of two typical findings: 1. Complex partial seizures (loss of consciousness with abnormal gesturing or automatic movements); 2. Simple partial seizures (preserved consciousness with the sense of unusual smell, taste, thought, or altered body function)
 * Dr. Dolittle, it may surprise you to learn that there are people who disagree with your definition of what is or is not "rational". Personally, I have to say that your attitude towards religion, and Islam in particular, seems more than a little irrational itself. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 07:15, 29 December 2007 (EST)
 * Rationals make no difference betweem "prophets" and "selfdeclaired prophets" and "God" and "Idols". They are also not defending islam (e.g. editing articles about temperal lobe epilepsy) because they think that that has to be the answer to the even stupid christianity. Dr. Dolittle 08:46, 29 December 2007 (EST)


 * To stupid evil word religions, we give no quarter, for they are full of singularity ONEist educated anti-harmonics. Anyway, listen to AKJeldsen - you're not being very intellectually honest, and in fact are doing what you accuse your enemies of - putting your conclusions first and making untestable assertions, eg about the TLE. If I was a different person, on a very different site, I would be accusing you of deceit right about now. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!

Editing 101
please don't create a bunch of redlinks without creating articles for them. Also, please try to proofread your edits and capitalise proper nouns (Muslim, Abraham, Christianity, etc.) Thanks. PFoster 14:50, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Please, please, please capitalise proper nouns - don't needlessly make work for people. Thanks. PFoster 16:47, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Sick of getting your edits reverted? Please take it to talk pages - AND LEARN WHERE THE CAPITALS GO!!!!! PFoster 10:54, 28 December 2007 (EST)
 * Thanks for reverting (if it means "translating", you know I am not English speaking). Further on we share also not the same opinion. Like your view to edit "islam" as "submission", in stead of other wiki's Dr. Dolittle 11:12, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Thanks for editing some of the articles, and I can explain my reverts, at least, by the fact that some of the writing is very unclear, and I can't tell what you're getting at. Could you clean up the edits you write, and capitalize accordingly, please? I'd be happy to help myself but I'm about to run out for the day.- 12:04, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Islam and related subjects
First, welcome to Rational Wiki. I've attempted to incorporate some of your suggestions into the articles you've edited. While I appreciate that we have different points of view, I am open to you editing as you please. However, when editing a controversial topic, please be certain to include as many references as possible to justify your position. For example, in Hubal you had stated that Muhammad was a disciple of Hubal and that this is the reason for the Crescent and Star symbol of Islam without any attribution. Though I don't believe either of these things to be true, if you can provide some scholarly support, I'm certainly willing to have them included in the article. Thank you for your interest in the project and I look forward to long term collaboration. Stile4aly 14:36, 28 December 2007 (EST)
 * Thanks. But I presume that I don't need to prove that Hirsi Ali is an immigrant and thus the current point of view that "islamophobia" is a form of xenophobia has not to be referended. Dr. Dolittle 14:44, 28 December 2007 (EST)
 * This is why it's stated that Islamophobia is a form of xenophobia. Xenophobia as a whole is fear or hatred of all foreigners, whereas Islamophobia is fear or hatred of Muslims exclusively.  Hirsi Ali is highly critical of the role of women and minorities in Islam, and in many ways I agree with her.  I'm not sure I would call her an Islamophobe.  Not all critics of Islam are Islamophobes, and not all Islamophobes are critics of Islam.  Stile4aly 14:53, 28 December 2007 (EST)
 * Why should "islamofobia" be hatred to muslims as you said ? What you call islamofobian are opposing the IDEOLOGY islam. Not the victimes (the people who are believing it, in 99,999 % because they are indoctrinated as a little child). I insist to make a change of your defintion of "islamofobia". Dr. Dolittle 17:21, 28 December 2007 (EST)
 * I think for the first time ever you guys have managed to scare an editor towards Conservapedia. Lucky for them, Fox is a wiley one and knows what's up at RW at all times . Lurker 15:28, 28 December 2007 (EST)
 * Heh /winks
 * I think he'll find the CP crowd considerably less friendly. Note that his article has already been purged, and if Andy or Karajou catches whiff of him, he'll be banhammered in short order, whereas we've actually tried to incorporate some of his concepts and given him short blocks for edit warring.  Stile4aly 15:34, 28 December 2007 (EST)
 * It seems to me that he 'calmed down' there, with only one article and one talk page comment - compare to his output here today. Is this a survival strategy or did he just go to bed? Ed @Thanks SusanG for my nick 15:38, 28 December 2007 (EST)
 * Oh, I spoke too soon. Will they agree with him that after the New Testament, the Old one has lost its value? Ed @Thanks SusanG for my nick 15:55, 28 December 2007 (EST)
 * not with a Jew for Jeebus on the case: PFoster 15:57, 28 December 2007 (EST)
 * Our Jew has been patient - maybe he reads too much RW - but let's see what happens after this. Ed @Thanks SusanG for my nick 16:08, 28 December 2007 (EST)
 * How embarrasing. "rational" wiki is no much rational then conservapedia. "rationals" writing about "prophets and selfproclaimed prophets". Whoe ha ha. According rationals there should be not any difference. Whoe ha ha again. Dr. Dolittle 17:02, 28 December 2007 (EST)
 * Eh. I think most of the hardcore atheistic editors are busy right now.  I updated the prophets page to add some of our normal snark, despite my own theistic biases.  Researcher 17:17, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Okay
Okay, first I'm agnostic, so religion isn't the issue, the issue is that the crap you're adding makes no sense. Second, TLE was a copy and paste job from another website, and therefore was deleted. 07:18, 29 December 2007 (EST)
 * You could have messaged me that. But no matter. AN EARLIER OWN WRITEN ARTICLE HAD BEEN DELETED EARLIER. THEREFOR I MADE A COPY. not knowing that is out of the rules. So maybe you can look more critical to our "rational" friends here Dr. Dolittle 07:21, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Hey, Dr. D.!
I just got the greatest idea! How about actually adding some sources or references for all those interesting ideas you're trying to put in? -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 08:42, 29 December 2007 (EST)
 * I don't think that that is the problem. I had also a link to the definition of Temporal-lobe epilepsy but it disappeared. And further on, refences that (the fictive) Allah isn't the same as (the fictive) Bible God is in this islamophilian environment not of any sense. Do you really think that my comments that Theo van Gogh also called his God ("a rather sweet and intelligent piglet") Allah shall be not rejected as I link to that column. Ect ect ect. Dr. Dolittle 09:04, 29 December 2007 (EST)
 * As for the first bit, AK has provided you with a definition above. I don't really understand the rest. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
 * For starters, you need to distinguish between verifiable claims and opinion. When mr. van Gogh claimed that the Christian and Muslim gods are not the same, that was his opinion. I don't doubt that he held it, but it is not shared by the vast majority of scholars who actually understand the issue, which is why so many of us don't feel it is reasonable to include it. However, when you write that the Islamic moon calendars are a sign of pagan influences in Islam, or that a hadith describes Muhammad suffering from epilepsy, those are verifiable claims and should be referenced. In particular, I'd very much like to know which particular hadith mentions such a thing. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 10:29, 29 December 2007 (EST)

How it works...
Please stop making the same unsubstantiated edits over and over again. Do some research, get some good sources, talk about it on talk pages, and see how it goes. This endless reverting is no fun for anybody. The whole "temporal lobe epilepsy" theory and the relationship between Hubal and the lunar calendar idea have been kiboshed by several editors here - not just me. Putting them in over and over won't make people any more receptive to them. Salaam Aleikum. PFoster 09:38, 29 December 2007 (EST)
 * Needed it also research that God and Allah are not the same ???? Or that the Qur'an is not "quoted minded". I see to many writings which are just in favour of islam (as "Idols" in stead of "Gods" and it need no any research to put quotation marks around "self proclaimed prophets" (as is all prophets are not self proclaimed). And concerning Hubal and the lunar calender I last even only wrotes "this suggests ...". Dr. Dolittle 09:44, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Suggests to you maybe - does it suggest anything to serious scholars of Islam? Same with the idea that God and Allah are not essentially the same deity - got any scholarly reference for that? What do you mean by "quoted minded?" and we explained to you before why there is no reason to put quotation marks around "self proclaimed prophets" in the context in which you want to use it. PFoster 09:48, 29 December 2007 (EST)
 * This "moderation" of you proves that the lack of references does not matter at all. You are as a "rational" very very pro-islam. Why should rationals defend the duties of "submission" while it is just a prove it can't be divine "revelations" ? "Although this solution is not specifically mentioned in the Qur'an or Hadith, it is an example of how Islamic doctrine can be adapted to local circumstances while still preserving its core tenets. Dr. Dolittle 13:10, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Retrieved from "http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Ramadan"


 * Not whole this wiki is totaly referended. Your deleting is mostly because your points of view. And I have some thinking that seeking for references has not any effect. Like the reference on TLE has been deleted !!!! Dr. Dolittle 09:52, 29 December 2007 (EST)

For your consideration
I'd pay special attention to the cautionary note at the bottom of the page. This and this provide some possible insights into the unusual choice of user name. --Robledo 11:05, 29 December 2007 (EST)
 * Robledo is teh cunning. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!

Sorry,
but your article creation binge is going to have to go once an admin gets here. I would do it now, but I laid aside my banhammer a while ago. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!


 * Can you give me a list of what needs to go? I'm not really an expert on the subject of them, so I could use the direction. --Kels 16:19, 29 December 2007 (EST)
 * Well, we'll give him a chance to explain himself first. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
 * I might point out that under Wikipedia rules, Dolittle would have already been whacked at least twice for 3RR. He's pretty evidently a nuisance, and by all indications an intractable one. Not to mention his "islamophilia" thing sounds suspiciously like "n- lover" -- not only not insulting, but betrays him as a raving bigot. We don't need his type here. EVDebs 19:38, 29 December 2007 (EST)
 * After spending seeming hours wading through this user's, um, writings and serial reversions, I'm surprised that he is not blocked by now. I'm going to give him a day or so off so we can clean up this mess he has made.
 * "we'll give him a chance to explain himself first" He has had many, and the "patois" makes them hard to understand, as well. If he could suggest things on talk pages so we can figure out what he means and edit it into the article as English, it wouldn't be so bad, but he is running amok with bizarre insertions, edit warring, and clumsy/crappy article creation. human  22:35, 29 December 2007 (EST)


 * He didn't seem to be quite as offensive as some of the metapedia denizens we get here. I think if anything, most of the problem is this person's grasp of the English language. Anything contributed needs someone to edit it afterwards to turn it in to coherent sentences, which would be a full time job for one person. To be honest, I'd tend to discourage you from editing if you can't string a reasonably grammatical sentence together in English. Due to laziness most of what you write is going to end up reverted, so it's kind of a waste of everyone's time to persist. -- 22:42, 29 December 2007 (EST)
 * I'm not so concerned with that as much as DrD's sheer pigheadedness. Crappy writing can be cleaned up -- edit warring has to be dealt with differently. EVDebs 23:15, 29 December 2007 (EST)
 * Hey, I don't mind cleaning up IceWedge's sometimes mangled spelling - at least I can figure out what he means. With our good Doctor here, it is phail almost understand completely sometimes. human  23:20, 29 December 2007 (EST)

post-block thoughts
The good Doctor's block will be expiring soon, and I think we need to figure out a way to help him improve the reception his edits are getting. Random thoughts:

1. He appears to have at least a partial "on mission" goal of refuting/mocking (fundamentalist) Islam in much the same way we have been perfectly happy to do with (fundamentalist) Christianity. I think we should try to take advantage of whatever information he can bring to us. I suggest we find some good snarky xtian articles and encourage him to put his thoughts in a similar format?

2. Language issues. I believe he stated he is Dutch - don't we have a native speaker on hand? (is it AKjeldson?) Perhaps we avoid some of the "losses in translation" if he could explain himself in his native tongue to someone whose English is better? I am certain some of the things that were reverted were not for "bad" content, but for being impossible to understand and then reword.

3. I'm not pulling an Ed Poor style "writing plan" thing here, but perhaps with some guidance and assistance lent to the Doctor, we can gain some good stuff for the site.

Just some thoughts, and assuming good faith. human  16:58, 30 December 2007 (EST)
 * I admire your open-hearted nature. I agree with you in terms of trying to help his stuff fit and work, but the fact that he consistently reverted stuff that was explained on talk pages (like about epilepsy, lunar calendars and moon-gods) makes me wonder if the "good faith" demand is asking too much. Same goes for his responses to being reverted: "You're a bunch of Islamophiles who are no better than Conservapedia," or the comment that we shouldn't capitalise "Muslim" because to do so wouldn't be "rational" - that had nothing to do with English language skills and everything to do with having an axe to grind but little with which to to back it up.PFoster 17:06, 30 December 2007 (EST)
 * On the good faith thing, I would personally look at his contribs. list, paying special attention to his edit comments. 17:10, 30 December 2007 (EST)
 * As noted, I don't speak Dutch, but I didn't feel it was that difficult to get what he was trying to say - and that was basically "I'm going to badmouth Islam because that's obviously the rational thing to do." On the other hand, it should probably be recognized that we already have plenty of stuff around that is much more far out than what he was trying to bring to the table, so I don't know... -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 17:27, 30 December 2007 (EST)
 * Yes I was blocked, e.g. for writing wrong information. And that by a person who wrote this "This section is especially funny because Ramadan is usually in the Northern Hemisphere late autumn-winter period. So it's more of an issue in Southern latitudes. If it is an issue at all.". Not knowing that islamic year is not equal to the, usual, year which is 365 days but 12 days shorter because Mo wanted it back to 12 lunar-months. And ofcourse we share not the same opinion about "rational". Anti-christian came in your case pro-islam. E.g. why is Jew editted. Do rationals really believe that all Jews (the people) are jews (members of the judaist religion)? Are in not neocons who consider all Jews as judaists (because that is necessary for there fairy tail the Bible ? Dr. Dolittle 04:02, 31 December 2007 (EST)
 * Um, you lose. Sorry.  Ramadan is always between October and February.  I study calendars for fun, you apparently  do not.  I know the Islamic calendar is lunar.  So is the Hebrew calendar.  Ever hear of "intercalary months"  I asked in good faith, whether you had anything to offer.  Apparently you don't.  Night night. human  07:28, 31 December 2007 (EST)
 * I hate to contradict you, Human, but the Islamic calendar is not synchronized to the solar year, so Ramadan can fall both during the winter and summer. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 07:34, 31 December 2007 (EST)
 * Contradict away (especially when I'm totally wrong!). I thought the Islamic calendar, like the Jewish one, used extra months to stay crudely in sync with the solar year (so if a month is a summer month, it's always "somewhere" in the summer).  I did try to look it up, but nothing I found made it clear to me, so I went with what I thought I already knew.  Shows to go ya, I guess.  I better do some more research.  And should I unblock Mr. Dr. & apologize? human  18:05, 31 December 2007 (EST)
 * I dunno about unblocking - he *again* tried to circumvent the redirects on "Jews" and "Muslim" and added a some of the edit-warring stuff that I banned him for a few days back. PFoster 18:09, 31 December 2007 (EST)
 * Opinion from a peon: I concur. As I said before, the problem was never his writing or his information (though he's been rightfully flamed on both). It's his refusal to accept or even seek consensus that has been the fundamental problem. I really don't see how we can possibly overlook that when discussing whether he's to be unblocked or not. EVDebs 18:19, 31 December 2007 (EST)
 * Actually, Human, AKjeldsen is correct. The Islamic calendar is purely lunar with no correlation to the solar calendar.  When I began fasting for Ramadan as a teenager the month fell in December and January.  This past year, it was in August.  It moves back 11 - 13 days per year.  Stile4aly 14:08, 5 January 2008 (EST)
 * Thanks, Stile, and, yes, I later managed to look it up properly. I basically got it mixed up with the Hebrew calendar, but that's no excuse ;) human  18:34, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Spelling
--ZooGuard (talk) 11:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Abrahamic religions
Tell me more about how "Harry Potter Universe" is a meaningless phrase because harry potter is fictional.

Or more seriously, explain what you were trying to get at in more detail, because it's verymuch confusing. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)