Edward321

I edited the page Islam and blasphemy by adding exact Islamic Traditons along with exact on line references. But you reverted my edits. You are requested to my talk page to suggest which things are more needed that my edits are not reverted. Thanks --مہوش_علی (talk)--مہوش علی (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Ashina has several problems. For example, it has 2 etymology section. And I think the article is damaged by endless POV. Would you please review it? Thanks. --Zyma (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have applied for semi-protection for the article on the Shia Islam at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

You are kindly invited at my tak page.

Take your time, but please no more than 12 hours, or I will revert back. It took me a lot of time to put together all those edits.

I found sources that contradict the version you support, thus I edited. And thus you owe me a good explanation at the very least. Unemployed Golfer (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Likely Unemployed golfer is the banned user

• Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Same editing patterns on psychotronics and related articles.

Just giving a heads up. HealthyGirl (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

And he is blocked. -- GB fan 20:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

...this and this, which concern you. BMK (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Devlet Hatun and Devletşah Hatun are two different sultans. 212.253.113.70 (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Germiyanoğlu Devlet Şah Hatun should not be confused with the mother of Ottoman Sultan Mehmed I, namely, Devlet Hatun whose name in her vakfîyya is registered as Daulât bint-i Abd'Allah. This implies that the mother of Ottoman Sultan Mehmed I was non-Turkish origin.^{[Devlet ref 1]} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.253.113.70 (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

• 72.198.49.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Foleo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hey Ed, should we notify an Admin concerning this editor and his/her POV editing? Their "Anti-Arabism" and "Islamophobia" accusations are getting old.--Kansas Bear (talk) 00:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello Mr. Edward 21, I gave Ibn Abd al-Barr (978-1071), the famous Sunni Maliki judge and historians work as a citation. Here's his book: https://ia800202.us.archive.org/19/items/FP66100/01-02_66100.pdf go to page 100 to read what ibn Abd al Barr reports happened at Hasan ibn Ali's funeral. He says : لما مات الحسن أرادوا أن يدفنوه في بيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، فأبت ذلك عائشة وركبت بغلة وجمعت الناس، فقال لها ابن عباس: كأنك أردت أن يقال: يوم البغلة كما قيل يوم الجمل ؟! قالت: رحمك الله، ذاك يوم نسي. قال: لا يوم أذكر منه على الدهر "When al-Hasan died, they wanted to bury him in the house of the Messenger of Allah, so Aisha refused that, and rode a donkey, and gathered a group of people (against this), so Ibn Abbas said to her: It is as though you wanted it to be said - the day of the donkey, as it is already said the day of the camel, so she said: "May Allah have mercy on you, that is a day that has been forgotten", so he (Ibn Abbas) said: "there is no day more vivid (and remembered in the memory) than that day in the pages of time."

You can view this narration by Ibn Abdr al-Barr at both the link above to the original text or at http://islamport.com/w/adb/Web/558/16.htm, which is an encyclopedia of Sunni narrations and includes this narration by ibn abd al-barr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWikiManRules (talk • contribs) 20:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I am pleased that you also think Walter White of Breaking Bad is an antihero. Would a source from Rolling Stone, TV Guide or Entertainment Weekly be enough to be considered a reliable source? Please let me know as soon as possible, and enjoy your day. Mr. Brain (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Edward321

Just a heads up, broken references can sometimes be fixed with the Wayback Machine at archive.org/web/. The url of the reference can be searched using this page and it shows any archived copies it has stored.

For example, the Excalibur (L. Ron Hubbard) article had the reference http://american-buddha.com/cult.yesbookcalledexcalibur.htm, which now goes to something called 'Punk Lawyer'.

The Wayback Machine has the original reference stored at http://web.archive.org/web/20140922143648/http://american-buddha.com/cult.yesbookcalledexcalibur.htm.

Kind regards, Jonpatterns (talk) 08:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I could not execute your PROD, because the article was previously dePRODded, so is not eligible. You will have to consider AfD. JohnCD (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I saw your recent edit [1], you reattached the notability tag. Is there a reason why? The label has signed chart chopping/nominees to major awards artists, who are well recognized in the regional Mexican music genre.—Fundude99^{talk to me} 02:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I made some changes to that article. Is it better now? Leo1pard (talk) 06:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have already taken it to the talk page [2]. Have you looked at the sources? The sources do not say as the author has indicated (the author was also banned several times for sockpuppetry and deception). It is nothing but misattributed sources to justify non-NPOV and factually incorrect statements. Xtremedood (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've been meaning to do more or less what you're doing for a while and weed out things that are cited to sources that aren't reliable. However, with dead links like this, are you checking the Internet Archive to see if there's an archived version? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

P.S.: There's also a template {{Dead link}} which can be used to mark dead links for other people to check to see if there's an archived version, and there's a semi-automated tool for checking links thus marked. Also, see this section of the citation guideline on how to handle dead refs. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Any reason why you keep reverting my edits on the above article? I provided reasons why I removed it in the Talk page.

I'll just write it out here in case you missed it: I removed it because there was no appropriate source for any of the history provided - the only source given was Nancy Hatch Dupree / Aḥmad ʻAlī Kuhzād (1972). "An Historical Guide to Kabul - The Name". American International School of Kabul. Retrieved 2010-09-18 which refers to the history of Kabul, not Badakhshan (what the article is about). The text even refers to "territory south of the Hindu Kush" - Badakhshan is in the northeast. Plus it was pretty randomly placed and I'm sure someone just copied and pasted it from another Afghan-related pages assuming all provinces in Afghanistan have the same history. 77.98.4.100 (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Request to overturn administrator's decision". Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Edward321, please tell me your deletions from Ned Kelly to Muhammadu Buhari. What was wrong? Thank you!--Jens Burkhardt-Plückhahn (talk) 06:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Edward, some informations - The Immigration and Nationality Act provides a definition of an orphan for the purposes of immigration to the United States. A child may be considered an orphan because of the death or disappearance of, abandonment or desertion by, or separation or loss from, both parents. The child of an unwed mother or surviving parent may be considered an orphan if that parent is unable to care for the child properly and has, in writing, irrevocably released the child for emigration and adoption. The child of an unwed mother may be considered an orphan, as long as the mother does not marry (which would result in the child’s having a stepfather) and as long as the child’s biological father has not legitimated the child. If the father legitimates the child or the mother marries, the mother is no longer considered a sole parent. The child of a surviving parent may also be an orphan if the surviving parent has not married since the death of the other parent (which would result in the child’s having a stepfather or stepmother). Note: Prospective adoptive parents should be sure that a child fits the definition of ”orphan” before adopting a child from another country, because not all children adopted abroad meet the definition of “orphan,” and therefore may not be eligible to immigrate to the United States. Look please https://www.uscis.gov/tools/glossary/orphan! Thank you!--Jens Burkhardt-Plückhahn (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Edward, do you have a legal definition for orphans (USA, England, Germany, France, etc.)?--Jens Burkhardt-Plückhahn (talk) 06:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Edward, the statements of you are contradictory. Please, look the sources of wikipedia in the article "orphan". Thank you!--Jens Burkhardt-Plückhahn (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well, you say, I should look at the sources for the term orphan. I did that. There you will find a source, which you have not accepted by me. Please, check all sources listed on wikipedia for orphans. Thank you!--Jens Burkhardt-Plückhahn (talk) 11:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hallo Edward, what do you think about the list of orphans?--Jens Burkhardt-Plückhahn (talk) 05:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Edward, to your definition of orphan. The wikipedia can not be. The following law is given as source. Please see links! Which is true only for the US and not for England, Australia, New Zealand. Please delete your deletion in the list !!! https://www.uscis.gov/adoption/immigration-through-adoption/orphan-process https://www.uscis.gov/tools/glossary/orphan--Jens Burkhardt-Plückhahn (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Per your general notability guideline on Riviera International Film Festival:

While this is the inaugural year of a film festival, it has programmed some of the most coveted, high-celebrated and award-winning films from international cinema, all in competition. Including Academy Award nominated Embrace of the Serpent, Xavier Dolan's Cannes-award-winning film It's Only the End of the World, and Norwegian Oscar winner Sami Blood. If you look at all references, these are not mere mentions. These are legitimate articles discussing the festival from very legitimate international new sources, including one of the most prestigious publications in the world, Vogue Italia.

Some very large stars were also on the grand jury, including Marton Csokas, and appearances from Oscar winner Marion Cotilard for her film It's Only the End of the World. Your notability guideline placement should be taken down. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zandar84 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Looking at the history of this article, it seems that you were in support of the full version of the article. I have brought up this issue again. Talk:List of expeditions of Muhammad#Consensus version Capitals00 (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I would like to know why you felt the article on Padmanabhaswamy_Temple looks like an ad. I had worked on it for a while and had cited probably 80 to 90 percent of the info I put in with the remaining being mostly generic. The "Assets" section does have a lot of details though they are well-referenced from reliable sources wherein well-known public servants or officials have been cited. Is the detailing that is too much making it look like an ad to you? Which section (or paragraphs) were appearing as ads? It would be good if you could respond in brevity on my Talk as to where the changes should be made and I will work on it accordingly. While the issue mentioned does not sound like un-referenced or not unwiki which would make it look worse, it does still look bad that such an article is tagged as an ad. For now let me revert the tag. Also I am removing the mention of the "guesstimate" at the very beginning (which was not my addition btw). Regards SumerianPrince (talk) 07:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Edward321, please use Wikipedia articles Superhero and Xena to justify why Xena should not be included in List of superheroines, else please revert my edit back to include, thank you. Ibjoe (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I see you're trying to transfer the article Kidnapping of Şehzade Halil to Şahzade Halil. I presume you haven't checked the history of the article. Although the emphasis is on kidnapping, I personally don't oppose the transfer. Only I want to remind that the method of transfer is the move button on top of the page. But in this case somebody created an empty page of Şehzade Halil and transferred the article by copy and paste method which is unpermissible in WP. Cheers. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

While I as well know that trivia is not meant for Wikipedia, I would suggest not further engaging in the edit war with Armascout on the Diary Of A Wimpy Kid: The Getaway page, as participating in an edit war could be a breach of Wikipedia's guidelines. Read WP:EW for more information.

Regards, CoolSkittle (talk) 10:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC) CoolSkittle (talk) 10:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

... for this edit, but if you want your opinion to count, you need to state it in the RfC section, under the Survey heading. What matters is the RfC, not the "Protected edit request", which is now moot. Thank you. --NSH001 (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Edward,

unfortunately, you still have not understood the topic of orphans. Maybe someday the penny will fall to you. Happy new year 2018!--Jens Burkhardt-Plückhahn (talk) 03:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Edward, Certainly, you know the term orphan or foundling. I'm not sure about the complex meaning of the topic. An old classic interpretation of the term is based on your deletions. The term orphan has evolved over the centuries but. Even a half-orphan is an orphan. You refer yourself to links that point to it. PS: All links you deleted have been orphans or half-orphans. Please take the trouble and research in the multilingual wikipedia pages afterwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jens Burkhardt-Plückhahn (talk • contribs) 06:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Edward, Thanks for cleaning up the article. I am adding back the valid content with proper citations and few corrections so that it won't violate Wiki policies. Let us discuss in the article if any further corrections or citations are needed. aggi007(talk) 10:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC) This report indicates that there were signs of sexual assault and although Michelle was clothed, she was missing things like her bra and her shoes.Reply

www.khou.com/news/investigations/investigations-who-killed-michelle/408484935

Regarding the removal of much of List of United Kingdom mobile virtual network operators based on items not having individual articles.

I don't believe this action is valid or necessary. Under WP:LISTN "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." and WP:CSC suggests a type of valid list is a "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group" - where the suggested test for shortness is fewer than 32k bytes (of which the article was 17k) and the list isn't just hundreds of items (the list was only ~92 entries long).

Furthermore, the list was being actively developed by multiple editors with new articles, expanding citations and details. I agree that if the list were unmaintained or were to continue to grow with operators that did not have any citations or wikilinks then it would be at risk of becoming WP:LC; and if it did reach that point then a discussion on the talkpage on setting new notability requirements is a much better solution than just deciding yourself.

If your concern was that active operators without articles were being externally linked to then that's completely valid and should be removed as per WP:ELLIST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasime (talk • contribs) 15:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Edward321. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Martin DeFoor, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: if someone is significant enough to be remembered 140 years later, they are significant enough to pass A7. Plus, there is a whole HuffPost article about him from 2016. Thank you. SoWhy 08:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, what? The article is about anime-influenced animation, not anime-influenced creators. The source in question basically could not be clearer that this is indeed the case. You're moving the goalposts to apply an unacceptably high, exclusionary standard here (which would probably result in the deletion of said article if it were applied for notability purposes, by the way).

And I see you removed Totally Spies! from the same article, and it should be reinstated immediately as well for a similar reason - the source in that case explicitly admits that it looks like anime despite not actually being such. Modernponderer (talk) 08:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Third-party opinions, provided they are found in reliable sources, are literally everything Wikipedia articles are supposed to consist of. Even "facts" must come from such opinionated sources to be allowed here, because "facts" are simply commonly agreed-upon opinions from an encyclopedic point of view (no matter how commonly).

In fact, a creator being "influenced" by a work is... that's right, generally an opinion of said creator! (Or do you think that there is an objective test for that?) And secondary sources are strongly preferred to primary ones on Wikipedia, so if anything what I'm trying to add is far more in line with policy.

But all of this is irrelevant if you're right, because there is virtually no way the article would satisfy notability requirements if other editors actually agreed with you. There are not nearly enough "frequent statements" or "routine interviews" where creators of Western animated series specifically admit to anime influence to merit an article for that. That's why, once again, the article is titled anime-influenced animation, and not anime-influenced animation creators or such. Modernponderer (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please let me know if you are still planning to respond to this. Thank you. Modernponderer (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Just a heads up on Chemical Galaxy. I had to decline the speedy request because books are not eligible for speedy deletion. PROD or AfD would be the way to go here.----Fabrictramp | talk to me 04:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I've removed the Boldly-added table. Ther wasn't a lick of discussion about its inclusion, and entries were subjectively removed in the process (as if perhaps to conceal their removal, and make difficult their re-adding). The point of reverting back to before the table was to a) find a consensus for the table in the first place, and if such a consensus exists, to b) add all of the entries from the pre-table version into the table. If there are arguments for any particular entry's removal, then discussion is also the place to argue pro and con.
I am explaining this here on your talk page, so that you know that my revert was not a trout slap at you, but an integrity check for the article. If you disagree, feel free to contribute to the discussion already occurring int he article talk. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! deisenbe (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Edward321, I want to explain that you correctly understand the situation with an attempt to present the opinion of the journalist for the opinion of the academic commission. Journalist Sergeev is an editor in geographical sciences and has nothing to do with psychology. Here is the very message of journalist Sergeeev about the work of the commission: "How is the work of the RAS Commission on combating pseudoscience, how decisions are made? The commission is a group of specialists from 60 people, whose level and class is confirmed by the Presidium of the RAS, which appoints the composition. At the head is the chairman, who is authorized to give any comments, statements on behalf of the commission, and appoint temporary expert groups on all issues.

Naturally, questions can go beyond the competence of permanent members of the commission - one can not expect that 60 scientists can cover all scientific issues. Their task is to select qualified experts at the right time and supervise their work in the methodological plan: how to make the right argument, to think about the level of its complexity, so that it is available to a wide audience.

These 60 people are not inquisitors, but competent scientists. The commission has many status academicians, and they do not write third-term dissertations. Their task is to say: here this candidate of sciences is a brilliant expert in this topic, I vouch for him. After that, he writes a review of the work or analysis, and the academician checks it. The result is signed by the chairman of the commission." https://www.ucheba.ru/article/4353

But no expert work commission on socionics was not conducted. Nobody accepted any memorandums. Therefore, what the journalist Sergeyev wrote, once mentioning socionics without scientific references is his personal opinion or just a delusion. Therefore, an attempt to present his opinion as a result of the work of the commission is an obvious falsification or scientific forgery The Academic Commission has never considered Socionics, since Socionics has been taught for over 20 years in 200 universities and is even used to train astronauts and civil aviation pilots. All this is in the article. Socionics comes from the famous typology of K. Jung and is close to the Myers-Briggs typology, which is used by millions of people. However, there are unscrupulous people who are looking for shortcomings and even resort to falsifications. I have already written to Orangemike so that he will review the situation. He commented on it yesterday: "If Sergeev is notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia, then his opinion can be cited. Otherwise, you're violating WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS: he does not become an authoritative source by associating with an organization of authoritative sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)" But Sergeev does not have an article on Wikipedia, he's just a journalist. Therefore, to represent his unqualified fantasies for the decision of the academic commission is a direct falsification. --Sounderk (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Hi Edward231, you can not personal opinion of a journalist, not a commission, put at the beginning of the article! This issue has already been resolved in the Russian-wiki. This was later rejected and the administrator of the Russian-wiki A.Vajrapani | Alexandrine made a direct ban on the presentation of this material on behalf of the academic commission, because this is the opinion of one person - journalist Sergeyev, rather than the entire commission. After this decision, Q Walda wrote to the administrator "Thank you very much." The only request to clarify is that "not the KBL under the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences was characterized, but such an author in the ballot of such and such", but all the ballots are approved by the commission ("Approved by the RAS Commission on Struggle with pseudoscience and falsification of scientific research "), so the responsibility in the bulletin publications is not only personal, but collective, is not it? -Q Valda 10:47, May 16, 2018 (UTC)"

"Administrator's response: "If you take the reference you quoted, the attribution" KBL under the Presidium of the RAS characterized "could be used for assessments taken, for example, from" Memorandum No. 2 of the RAS Commission on Combating Pseudoscience and Falsification of Scientific Research "(P.7 and further), because it says directly: "The Commission declares that ...", and for other articles of the bulletin, where there are no applications on behalf of the Commission, the attribution of the author is appropriate Alexandrine (обс.) 11:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC )" [3]

• After that, the Q Valda himself, in order to avoid sanctions himself, removed all controversial edits from the article[4]Thus in the Russian-wiki socionics his actions were rejected. But here he is trying to do the same, But there is no reason to support such erroneous or falsified actions here. --Sounderk (talk) 09:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Edward321, I am rolling back the changes in this article regarding accusations of priest. Those are all allegations by a person on TTD in news media. They don't have any base yet. This can be violating the wiki policy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Let us discuss if you have any concerns. aggi007(talk) 09:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Edward321, Meher Baba was born to a Zoroastrian family in India and many of his teachings contain terms from this religion. Actually much of his work is given in syncretic terms from Vedanta, Sufi and Zoroastrian traditions. Hoverfish Talk 00:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please do not remove entries from lists just because those entries do not have their own articles. The notability requirements for inclusion in lists is different than the notability requirements for articles. That is how we can have (for example) List of tallest chimneys eventhough there is not (and should not be!) an article for each chimney. —Haikon 02:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Ed. Why have you reverted my removal of the POV statement over at Croatian war of independence? 23 editor (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of female supervillains, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gilded Lily, Blackfire and Nocturna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Assim al-Hakeem is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assim al-Hakeem until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SWL36 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Dawat-e-Islami The following appears to be created just for advertisement and promotion values and must be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saudmujadidi (talk • contribs) 04:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Back in 2015 you made an edit to Historical negationism. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_negationism&diff=prev&oldid=678679119 You described the edit as "added sourced info".

But the reference includes the wrong page number. The same wrong page number that was used in a reference for the same material added in 2007 to Neo-Confederate. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neo-Confederate&diff=prev&oldid=136092743

It appears that you copied the mistaken material from one article to another without proper attribution. So that's two mistakes, one compounding the other.

You should always say where you got material. That's both a requirement for Wikipedia (WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT & WP:COPYWITHIN), and the best practice for any historian, even an amateur. Milpack (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Why do you keep reverting the chapter titles? What does "probable copy violation" mean? Many articles about books list chapter titles. Hexatekin (talk) 04:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) Reply

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Reply