User talk:Nannadeem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

September 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm Dawnseeker2000. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Naqvis, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Dawnseeker2000 16:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did to Naqvis, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Alexf(talk) 13:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Nannadeem (talk) 11:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC) Respected Alexf, I (user Nannadeem) testify that I made my best according to knowledge and belief in quoting source. I can mail you the scanned pages of the books i referred. I further state that telling lie is sin and writing lie is great sin. However, I request you to guide me which source of reference is acceptable - thanks Nannadeem (talk) 11:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It is all fairly simple really. Sending scans does not accomplish anything. The only thing that matters is that your edits follow the Golden Rule. -- Alexf(talk) 12:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Nannadeem (talk) I (Nannadeem) testify that I confined myself to edit by following Golden Rule. Please belief me Nannadeem (talk) 12:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Alexf(talk) 22:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Nannadeem (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC) Thanks a lot for giving importance to my article. Kindly remove mistakes, if any, which might be due to my poor knowledge & ability, however, you may please improve my article by giving your valued advice and guidance. thanks again.

Proposed deletion of Naqvi Orientation[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Naqvi Orientation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Apparently a personal essay, with most of its key points unreferenced. In any case compeltely unencyclopedic as written. The topic may be notable, but the article would need a total rewrite.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DES (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Nannadeem (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC) In the light of your observations, I attempted to modify the article so as to remove personal style. I request the Admns to guide me which phrase(s) need improvement or deletion, for which writer is ready. However, it will be discouraging to remove the Article completely. I shall appreciate the points to be deleted. Thanks for reading the Article closely.

Your request for undeletion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that a response has been made at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion regarding a submission you made. The thread is Naqvi Orientation. JohnCD (talk) 11:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Your request for undeletion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that a response has been made at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion regarding a submission you made. The thread is Naqvi Orientation, again. JohnCD (talk) 09:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Naqvi Orientation for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Naqvi Orientation 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/Naqvi Orientation until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. JohnCD (talk) 09:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Duplicated in case of page deletion[edit]

I am placing a duplicate here of what I wrote on the Naqvi Orientation talk page in case that page is deleted before you get a chance to read it. If you have read that page already, ignore what is below. I am not trying to harass you. Just the opposite, in fact.

Nannadeem, it is clear that you wish to contribute to Wikipedia with an article that is close to your heart. This is, in general terms, a good thing. Wikipedia would be worthless without millions of volunteer contributions from people around the world.

Wikipedia has a series of self-imposed guidelines and policies. These guidelines and policies are intended to keep these millions of contributions focused on a common goal of what the project hopes to achieve. The other side of this coin is that Wikipedia does not try to be all things to all people.

You are apparently having difficulty with the feedback that you have received so far. The other editors that have left messages here are attempting to explain they feel why this article does not fit into Wikipedia's policies for including or excluding articles.

I will attempt to summarize these concerns in plain English, with links to the guidelines and policies that support these concerns.

  • English usage We have a Manual of Style that has been agreed to by the broad community as the preferred way to write articles. Among other things, it says: "Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best; avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." The article you have written, and your messages on its talk page, are neither clear nor concise. They are generally extremely difficult to understand, and in some places so not make coherent sense at all. You are apparently a non-native user of the English language. This is not a issue in itself. Many other productive editors speak and write English as a second, third, or even fourth language. The issue is that articles are intended for an English-speaking audience, and so should be understandable to that audience. The editors that have commented on your article so far cannot understand what you are writing.
  • Original Research We have a policy that Wikipedia is not the publisher of original research. What you have written appears at the very least to be a synthesis of ideas not found in your sources. To the extent your article and messages are understandable, they seem to be advancing a new idea that you have generated yourself. You cannot find one article that says A, a second that says B, and together use them to justify your statement of C. So far as I can tell, you not only do just that, you then go on to say D, E and F without any further sources of information. If you think your apparently unique idea of a Naqvi Orientation is a genuinely useful one, you need to bring this to the world's in some other media.
  • Sources We have a policy that Wikipedia articles must be supported by what we call "reliable" sources. "Reliable" sources are materials published (online or print or otherwise) by those that are not directly connected to the subject of the article or its author. We also prefer English-language sources to other sources that are in another language. The reason for this is that each major assertion in an article needs to be verifiable. Non-english sources make verifiability difficult. Having no source at all makes verifiability impossible. Your article has both problems.

I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ape is a Punished Man[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Ape is a Punished Man has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

An original theory essay, it is inappropriate for Wikipedia per WP:NOTESSAY.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nat Gertler (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC) Nat Gertler (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Ape is a Punished Man for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ape is a Punished Man 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/Ape is a Punished Man until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Nat Gertler (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Nannadeem. You have new messages at NatGertler's talk page.
Message added 17:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nat Gertler (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Your request for undeletion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that a response has been made at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion regarding a submission you made. The thread is Ape is a Punished Man. JohnCD (talk) 11:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Nannadeem! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

File permission problem with File:Watery-Bldg-Blocks.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Watery-Bldg-Blocks.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion[edit]

I have deleted the article Elf or Jinn as an unencyclopedic religious essay. You seem to be comparing the concept of God/Allah with the Jinn. The article God in Abrahamic religions, as well as the more specific articles God in Judaism, God in Christianity, and God in Islam (plus the related article Allah about the word itself) already exist.

It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to state religious beliefs as a fact. Rather, its purpose is to describe what adherents of various religions believe, in a neutral and objective manner.

I have speedily deleted two of the images you have used for decoration in the article, File:Liquid-Water-System.jpg and File:Watery-Bldg-Blocks.jpg, as copyright violations from extrasolar.spaceart.org and space-art.co.uk, respectively. They are professional works of art, and their authors collect royalties for their use. I have also nominated for deletion two other files you have uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons: File:Shrine-Imam-Naqi.jpg as a copyright violation (collage of two images, one of them a professionally made poster and the other from an unknown source), and File:Universe-Image.jpg as a picture of microwave background radiation (possibly a duplicate of File:Ilc 9yr moll4096.png) with an unencyclopedic caption added. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Nannadeem (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC) Thanks. Neither I am comparing God with Jinn or Elf nor putting Jinn/Elf as God. I do not know, how did you construe it so? I have been attempting to write about jinn or elf as per available material already published on scientific approach, based on religious doctrines. However, before highlighting jinn/elf, I was referring creation of universe and events (as described in religious printed book, duly translated in English and other languages and can be seen on line) of creations of angels, Jinns (elf). I was on editing process, during this period the article was deleted.

So far as the uploading of pictures is concerned, I have already mentioned the source and given the address as well. The address of files uploaded on 2/3 November, 2013 is: (i) Even when close to their stars, other worlds could harbor liquid water system https://www.sciencenews.org/article/clouds-may-keep-exoplanets-cool (ii) For the first time, astronomers have discovered the watery building blocks of Earthlike planets whirling around a star outside our solar system https://www.sciencenews.org/article/water-seen-rubble-around-star. My son who helps me in writing have got written permission. So the question of violation is totally baseless.

Other old pic uploading has already been described as free images from Shia wall papers. Then what is wrong. I am new on WP say beginner/learner, however, I do not feel shame in confessing mistakes. I am not a rigid, I appreciate suggestions and give importance to thoughts of others. May I now request you for undeletion of Elf or Jinn Nannadeem (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

  • With regards to the images: In order for an image to be usable on Wikipedia, it must be under a free license (or in public domain). This means that the license must permit third-party use, even commercial, and creation of derivative works. Anything more restrictive, e.g. a permission that only extends to Wikipedia, is insufficient. (See the image use policy; the fair use exception does not apply in this case, since the images were used solely for decoration.)

    You say that your son has received permission to use the images. I am afraid we have no way to verify that, let alone that it is under a free license. In any case ScienceNews.org is probably in no position to let you use the images, since they do not own copyright to them; you would need to ask the original author at extrasolar.spaceart.org and space-art.co.uk, respectively. (Mind you, the two images are very nice artist's conceptions of astronomical objects; if they were under a free license, they would make a nice addition to the Wikimedia Commons. If you indeed have a permission to release the images as such, see this guideline on how to verify it.)

    You say that the (now deleted) file File:Shrine-Imam-Naqi.jpg comes from a "free" collection of wallpapers. However, "free" in this context means "available free of charge", not "under a free license". (See Gratis versus libre.) Picking two (presumedly unfree) images from an unidentified source and putting them together as a collage does not enable you to release it under a free license.

  • I am not going to undelete the article Elf or Jinn. Wikipedia already has an article about the Jinn; and in any case, as I have said, it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to state religious beliefs as a fact. (For some reason, you claim Elves as a western equivalent of the Jinn.) You can challenge the deletion at deletion review, but I would advise you not to; like several articles before, the undeletion of this one will be denied as it is clearly out of the scope of Wikipedia and a duplicate of an existing article. (Articles that duplicate an existing topic may be speedily deleted.) If you want me to, I will recover the deleted text and e-mail it to you in case you want to find an alternate outlet for it. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sharif Razi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buhid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Creationism & Empirical Science[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Creationism & Empirical Science has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Original essay; creationism and knowledge both already have articles.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nat Gertler (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

  • You are still not getting it, are you? Wikipedia does not serve for you to write essays on various topics; original research and synthesis are outside the scope of Wikipedia. I have summarily deleted the article as a duplicate of Creationism and other articles, unsalvageable original research, and preaching (i.e. promotion of a particular belief system). Please stop creating articles like this one; should you continue, you may be blocked from editing. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I have already explained to you what was wrong with the article:

There are certain classes of articles that indeed may be summarily deleted by any administrator upon discovery; these are defined by the speedy deletion criteria. Both promotional and duplicate with an existing article are among the criteria. While original research is not a speedy deletion criterion, that original research is outside the scope of Wikipedia is one of the core Wikipedia policies.

You had created several unencyclopedic articles in the past, and after both me and other users have explained to you what was wrong with them, you still fail or refuse to understand. I am not going to personally block you, but if you continue creating unencyclopedic essays, I might report you at the administrators' noticeboard, with a possibility that a block or another restriction will be imposed on you (if consensus exists that such an action is warranted). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Shrine-Sharif-Razi.jpg[edit]

This image is a textbook example of replaceable fair use, since anybody could take a photo of the shrine and publish it under a free license. If you are the Flickr user and have taken the photo yourself, there's no need for a fair use claim; please see donating copyrighted material, and e-mail the Wikipedia mailing list to verify its copyright status. If not, I am afraid Wikipedia can't use the file.

Unless the copyright status of the image is verified, I am going to speedily delete it due to a clearly invalid fair use claim - contrary to what the notice says, the photo is not a "unique historic image". - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Let's start at the beginning. The photo differs somewhat from the one on Flickr - it has the e-mail address removed, and a caption added. You seem to have access to the original, unmodified photo. Is that correct? If so, and if you have taken it yourself, then I would recommend you to upload it over the current version of the image. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • You haven't answered my questions, so I have removed the picture from the article Sharif Razi, and will delete it within a few days. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed edit[edit]

I removed your edit from WP:RFAR. It doesn't belong there. The proper forum for requesting undeletion of articles is WP:REFUND.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I could not understand what do you want to tell me. I donot want undeletion of my article. ok I am sufferring from biased treatmentNannadeem (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
There's no bias. A malformed arbitration request is not the way to go.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


Thank you I think you all admins do favour each other without considering justice and logic. You all have power to remove and delete.Nannadeem (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I noticed the request for arbitration and have checked to make sure the administrators (Bbb23 and Mike Rosoft) haven't done anything they shouldn't, and I'm afraid they were absolutely correct to delete the article. I was going to return a copy of the article to your talk page, so you could continue to work upon it, but I found part of it was a copyright violation, which both confirms the deletion by Mike was correct, and also means I cannot undelete it. I believe the text came from [1] originally. Sorry this probably isn't what you want to hear. Nick (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I read your arbitration request from the history after its deletion, and I have no idea what it is that you are asking the ArbCom to do. You have posted several articles that have been proposed for deletion as containing original research or otherwise unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Both other editors and I have no idea what you were trying to bring to the attention of the ArbCom. You claim that you suffering from biased treatment, but it appears that you don't understand our policies of reliable sources, notability, and original research. If you read those policies and still think that you are suffering from biased treatment, please try to explain your concerns and we will further explain our policies. As it is, we have no idea what you are asking. (If you are actually asking for the editors who deleted your articles to be blocked or banned, you may be assured that that will not happen.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Some gentle advice[edit]

Nannadeem: The conversations immediately above came to my attention because I still have your user talk page on my watchlist after we had discussions over your Naqvi Orientation and Ape is a Punished Man articles. You may remember our previous conversations in connection with those articles. I am not an administrator but a humble editor such as yourself. I have no more power or influence than any other random user of the encyclopedia. I want you to understand that I say what I am going to because it is my honest observation and not part of any campaign against you or because I am attempting to gain the favor of those that delegate power.

What you need to understand and understand soon is this:

You are not going to win.

What I mean by this is actually a number of things: You are not the victim of a conspiracy among administrators to silence you. You are not the target of a group that wishes to automatically delete every article you create. You are not going to single-handedly change multiple policies that have built up over years of worldwide collaboration. Most of all, however, you are not using Wikipedia in the way that the rest of the community has determined it should be used.

Wikipedia is not a blog. It is not for any person's dissemination of their deep thoughts and philosophical musings. You have no right of free speech here. The owners of this service are perfectly within their rights to determine what can and can't be said here. Even if the slogan is that "anyone can edit" Wikipedia, it does not have a corollary of "anyone can say anything."

You have already been warned by actual administrators that you are treading on thin ice by continuing the same sort of postings. I urge you in the strongest terms possible to stop creating new articles for the time being and get some more experience in the way editing works here.

For example, there are are thousands of articles in the category of articles that need cleanup. That is a mere subset of the many, many, areas of maintenance that need help. May I suggest you start by seeing if you can assist in those areas before you go back to creating articles. It may help you avoid the issues that have caused your previous articles to be deleted.

Best of luck. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Your Comments Please[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Nannadeem. You have new messages at Eggishorn's talk page.
Message added 15:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: your message at User talk:Eggishorn - Good, we are getting somewhere; the photo was in fact taken by your brother. However, a permission that only extends to Wikipedia is insufficient. In order for the photo to be usable on Wikipedia, it needs to be under a free license. In this context, "free" means that the license needs to allow third-party use and distribution, including commercial use, and creation of derivative works. So you need to choose an appropriate free license, such as Creative Commons Attribution or Attribution share-alike license, and then have your brother e-mail the Wikipedia mailing list (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) to confirm that the photo is under the chosen license. (See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

  • The photo File:Shrine-Sharif-Razi.jpg is a nice photo of the shrine entrance. But I am afraid as it stands, it cannot be used on Wikipedia; the image use policy is clear. Every image needs to contain a notice that identifies its copyright status, and incorrect information is worse than no information at all.

    You have marked the photo as a reproduction of a "unique historic image", which is clearly not the case; it is a recently taken photo of the shrine. Since the photo can't stay on Wikipedia with an incorrect fair use claim, I had no choice but to mark the file for missing copyright status. That means that unless the problem is corrected, it will be deleted a week from now - on 10 January 2014.

    But there is also good news: since it's your brother who took the photo, all that's needed is to choose an appropriate free license, and e-mail the Wikipedia mailing list to confirm that your brother has agreed to publish the file under that license. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


Dear Mr. Rosoft, He is not my brother. I found the shrine pic on flicker and a copyright monogram thereon. So I contacted him through email. He granted me right of use. There is complicated system for uploading media, in case of copyright material/contents. It is not my intention to make myself something important. You may see that prior to my editing the burial of Sharif Razi was shown in Karbala. That is why I think the pic is necessary to remove the general awareness of the sweet people who believes without sereach.

I request not to delete the pic of shrine. However, whenever a new pic is available you or anyone may replace it by uploading to common. Besides, this you are free, I cannot stop you, I am a simple element your a huge molecule, and you can eat me (blocking) by your intramolecular force. Nannadeem (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Oh, sorry, I thought you really meant he was your brother; it was actually just a figure of speech. In any case, I am afraid the picture can't remain on Wikipedia unless it is under a free license; I am going to contact the Flicker user myself and ask him to license the photo as appropriate. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


No matter. I am hopefull for the fertility of your constructive efforts for shrine pic of Sharif Razi. I further request you to spare your precious time for study of his compilation Nahjul Balagha. Nannadeem (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Nahj-al-Balagha-09.jpg[edit]

I have more concerns about another image you have uploaded to be used in the article Sharif Razi. Is File:Nahj-al-Balagha-09.jpg a real book cover? To me, the image looks like it has been crudely photomanipulated:

  • While the actual book cover has various cratches and other blemishes, the white areas are perfectly white.
  • The ovals at the top and bottom look like they have been hand-drawn in Paint or another image editing software.
  • The text "Peak of Eloquence" and "Compiled: Sharif Razi" is written in a different font from the text at the top. The text at the bottom overlaps the stamp.

Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


Please Note, I cannot place image of a real book because of copyright concerns. So I made it on paint (software), it is purely an artwork (but not the work of artist) on a scan-page of a book-image obtained through my scanner. Nannadeem (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


The Book (Nahjul Balagha) is sacred for me, I respect the compiler (Sharif Razi), and so the question of unfair means is irrational. I have two books of Peak of Eloquence (Nahjul Balagha) from two different publishers, I can easily scan and upload the image of the book, but in this way I had to face the consequence as done with me, vide deletion of File:Al-Sawaq-i-Mehrqa.jpg

In order to avoid this situation I opt to create “title page” with paint (software). The theme was to show the Nahjul Balagha as BOOK nothing more. Further, it was mentioned during upload that the purpose is beautification of article and reference at glance. I would not request for undeletion, because my good faith is not a criteria to convince you. Nannadeem (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Fair use is a legal term: a principle that under certain circumstances one is permitted to make use of copyrighted works even without the author's permission. The Wikipedia fair use policy says that under certain circumstances limited amount of non-free content can be used on Wikipedia under the legal principle of fair use, if such material (e.g. image) has encyclopedic value and cannot be adequately replaced by material in public domain or under a free license. (Wikimedia Commons does not accept unfree/fair use material - that's why the image File:Al-Sawaq-i-Mehrqa.jpg has been deleted.)

    The picture File:Nahj-al-Balagha-09.jpg is, basically, a representation of how the cover of the book would look like if you were to design it; no actual edition of Nahjul Balagha looked like that. As such, it seems obvious that such an image has no educational value; I don't know how else to explain it to you. A real cover of the book might have educational value. However, in the article Nahjul Balagha a picture of an old manuscript of the book (File:Folio from a Nahj al-Balagha.gif) sufficiently illustrates the topic; adding another, unfree file would likely be against the above-linked fair use policy.

    You say that you have two editions of the book. However, it is possible that they won't be usable on Wikipedia. It all depends on where and when they were published; works published before the year 1923 are in public domain in the United States. See {{PD-US}} and Wikipedia:Public domain. (Also, extremely simple book covers may be ineligible for copyright; see File:Joyce wake.jpg for an example.) If you have a cover of the book that you think it may be in public domain, why don't you first upload it to an image hosting site (e.g. Flickr or ImageShack), and then ask at media copyright questions to confirm its copyright status? And if you can't locate such a picture, then never mind. There's no law saying that the article Nahjul Balagha or Sharif Razi must contain a cover of the book! :-) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Ali al-Sistani[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Nannadeem. You have new messages at Mike Rosoft's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Good converstion is in progress. Nannadeem (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

  • I have rewritten the "Nobel Peace Prize nomination" section. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


Well I have seen Ali al-Sistani page section-3, I appreciate your grooming in accordance with EN-WP contents style. Thanks Nannadeem (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Tehran Times has named the Iraqi newspaper Azzaman [2] as the source of this information; could you locate the original article? (I know no Arabic.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


Even I donot know Arabic/Persian. Anyhow me attempting to prove worthy in this task. Thanks for attention and kindness.Nannadeem (talk) 06:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

  • I believe the original article is here (Google translation). The article was published on 7 March, still postdating Colin Freeman's article from 4 March. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes your investigation is 100% correct. Article publishing date of Colin Freeman, the Chief Foreign Correspondent for the Sunday Telegraph is 4 March. The article published in the REUTERS (OSLO Tue Mar 4, 2014) reportedly states:

Committee members who met on Tuesday added their own proposals with a focus on recent turmoil around the globe. Part of the purpose of the committee's first meeting is to take into account recent events, and committee members try to anticipate what could be the potential developments in political hotspots, said Geir Lundestad, Director of Norwegian Nobel Institute. It was further added here that - Although nominations are kept secret for 50 years, thousands of people around the world are eligible to propose candidates, including any member of any national assembly, and many make their picks public. This is here http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/04/us-nobel-peace-idUSBREA231R920140304.

Now dates are 4, 7 and 8 March 2014 (on/in different web & media). But I think case is old. Otherwise it might not be on the concerned URL. Nannadeem (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
good Mehdi ghaed (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mir Babar Ali Anis, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Persian, Rubai and Iqbal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. No disambiguation page has been added.
  2. All contents added, relate to Urdu poetry and published comments.Linking is just for quick reference of Articles Nannadeem (talk) 10:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Mirza Salaamat Ali Dabeer
added links pointing to Britain, America and Article
Mir Babar Ali Anis
added links pointing to Britain and America

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)