User talk:Humaliwalay

Hallaur

Mr. HAW!

I never tagged this article (it was re-tagged by User:NeilN on 2010-05-23 18:49:11 after your removal of tags), infact I was trying to verify the references, fixing and arranging them. Regarding your comment his comments like {personal websites/blogs} is absolutely false and absurd. can be termed as personal attack. Content of this article has little to do with the references of India's state level Government and NGO web links. If you think it is based on these websites(or any of references in the list) you may start working on inline citations, that would be more in betterment of this article than accusing others without any reason.

Regarding Hallaur.in, indeed it is personal website may be not of individual but of group and Hallaur.info is under construction.

As per Government references even name of this article is not correct. All Gov references provided refer the place as Haloor & not Hallaur. I think this also needs to be fixed. May be content of article should be moved to namespace Haloor & a redirect put at Hallaur pointing to Haloor.

And finally your attitude and actions don't conform to your user name. First you should have verified and then put an accusations.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 09:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Faiz,

I tender my apologies for that statement, I realized later when I noticed the changes made by you that your actual actions were to make the article meet standard guidelines. However, at that time I already shot a message to you.

Thanks very much for your efforts, actually this article was composed by a person whose English seemed to be as second language with lots of grammatical errors followed by emotional statements at that time the neutrality was targeted of this articles followed by the language then grammar. I am working on this article since months to get rectified hence I requested everyone not to edit this article with any authentic reference.

I thank you once gain for putting your efforts, pls help us out to get rid of al tags. Apologies again. Humaliwalay (talk) 06:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Hallaur, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. This is the second time you've removed maintenance templates without fixing the issues. Please do not remove them again without addressing the issues. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was editing and formatting of this article done by me and Faiz Haider as well. Hence I removed the disputed tags. Pls highlight the errors again as the English language grammar error has been rectified by me to the best of my knowledge now in this article. Humaliwalay (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on the article talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shia Islam in Pakistan

The article is all about Pakistan and its Shia community, officially and international Pakistan is considered as the second-largest Shia Muslims population, despite of fact that India also claims to the be having the second-largest Shia Muslims population, which i not really regarded authentic by the International community neither do they have any neutral sources to prove it. Since i am not repeatedly vandalizing the Shia Islam in India neither denying their claim, and not mentioning anything regarding the Pakistani claim or Pakistani Shia population figure, hence you shouldn't vandalize the Shia Islam in Pakistan article repeatedly, or else your childish behavior will be disregarded as nothing but as repeated vandalism, kindly follow the 3RR rules and regulations. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re. this request

Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Thanks. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 10:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

122.177.15.211's legal threat

Hello, You may refer to Article history of article Hallaur, in one of the edits a legal threat was made straight away in the article which was noticed by me and user Qwyrxian.Humaliwalay (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you mentioned on 122.177.15.211's talk page that he or she made a legal threat. Legal threats are a big deal on Wikipedia, but I see no evidence of the user ever making one (of course, if it has been oversighted, then that would explain it). To what are you referring? Also, note that there are easier ways to warn users for vandalism than typing out a whole thing. A non-comprehensive list is located here. The most common is uw-vandalism1 and its higher versions. --Quinxorin (talk) 05:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Shia Islam in Netherlands

On July 20, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shia Islam in Netherlands, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Courcelles (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Library of Congress Country Studies

As per this post - if you have a issue with Library of Congress Country Studies then you take it to the WP:RS/N, I don't have a problem with it. Codf1977 (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Humaliwalay. Thank you.Codf1977 (talk) 09:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Criticism of Sunni Islam

You may also wish to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Criticism of Sunni Islam, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Entire article appears like it's based on a strong POV of the creator of this article, User:Humaliwalay. I've done online searches and cannot find any sources that mention "Criticism of Sunni Islam". I think it qualifies under G-1 Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. The citations in the article are unverfiable, except the first 3 which I added but are not related to "Criticism of Sunni Islam".

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. AllahLovesYou (talk) 05:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not accuse you of vandalism

I have never accused you of vandalism, however I agree with Atama assessment of your actions. In addition to my comments above, please refrain from accusing, either on talk page or via an edit summary any other editor of vandalism unless it is undeniably that - if you fail to heed this final warning it could also lead to a block for violating the WP:AGF policy. Codf1977 (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Humaliwalay, I've blocked you for 24 hours. This is intended as a "pay attention to what other editors are telling you" block, because you appear to either not have read or to not have understood what Codf1977 (talk) has repeatedly been trying to explain, nor have you paid the slightest bit of attention to the final warning Codf1977 and Atama (talk) gave you (two threads directly above this one).

Codf1977 suggested (above) that you seek advice before adding or removing further maintenance tags, yet here you did precisely that - you removed a {{dubious}} tag from a claim that the Chapter of the Quraan Al-Fateha (The Opening) can be written with urine.

Here you removed a {{citation needed}} without providing a reference to support the claim. You did the same here, though I'll acknowledge that the first of the two tags was likely correctly removed after you had edited the article (the same does not apply, in my view, to the second tag, which I feel you incorrectly removed).

Here you simply broke a {{quote}} - I'm not sure why, and it's entirely possibly it was a genuine mistake, but I do feel that if you were taking your time, and being less hasty about removing tags, mistakes like this would be far less likely to occur.

Here you removed a {{synth}} tag from the article. I have to say that I regard the article as very problematic - indeed, I raised the issue of this article at the Administrators' noticeboard for Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts yesterday, in part due to the reasons indicated by the tag.

When your block expires: slow down. Listen to advice. Seek advice from other editors. Do not edit war over tags. Discuss issues on the article's talk page. TFOWR 08:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely Biased, prejudiced and one sided without listening to entire dispute in this regards of blocking me, user Codf1977 was disrupting articles removing warnings from talk page and not paying heed to request siding with biased editor Allahlovesyou, I think you are the sock-puppet of Codf1977, well I don't mind, I will keep editing what's truth. Dubious tag nowhere suits the statement of Urine because it has been reference by the verdicts of 2 renowned Scholars, if you refute reference how come you claim to be an editor. How come there can be dubious tag when 2 references are cited. - Humaliwalay (talk) 08:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If despite being with references Criticism of Sunni Islam is regarded as problematic article by you, then why is Criticism of Twelver Shiism article existing on Wikipedia?? - Humaliwalay (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Humaliwalay, I forgot to mention above: you can request an unblock using the {{unblock}} template. Add {{unblock|Replace this part with why you think you should be unblocked}} at the bottom of this page. TFOWR 08:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will not request unblock as it was unjustly done, I will rather wait for expiry and start editing what's truth?? Thanks for the unjust block, however that will not deter me from composing the truth. - Humaliwalay (talk) 09:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just so I can be clear, how many WP editors do you think are my Socks since this is now the second time you have accused me ? 08:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Humaliwalay, while you're blocked have a read of WP:TRUTH - it may help explain part of the problem here. In short, Wikipedia relies on verifiability, not truth. You may know something to be true, but other editors and readers won't necessarily have access to the same information you do. For that reason you need to provide references from reliable sources. When you don't do this, information you add may well be removed at worse, or tagged with {{citation needed}} at best. Edit warring over this won't help, and will likely result in you being blocked again. What you need to do is collaborate - work with - other editors to solve the problems. Removing tags and edit warring to reinstate unverifiable information is not the answer. This is an encyclopaedia, not a game, and fighting is never the solution. Likewise, accusing good faith editors of sock puppeting is also never the solution. And in this case (accusing me of being Codf1977's sock puppet) it's frankly ludicrous, and in no way helps your cause. TFOWR 10:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I said about you was pertinent to your unjust and biased treatment, not to help my cause had if it been the case I would requested a review on my block which I did not do. So relax and do not threaten me to block again. You believe yourself as good faith Editor well your biased treatments do not prove you so.Humaliwalay (talk) 10:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I haven't threatened to block you - I have blocked you. If you have a problem with that, you can request an {{unblock}}. If you'd prefer to wait until your block expires you can raise the block at the Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents once your block expires. I believe I've provided all the information necessary for you to understand why you were blocked. If that isn't the case you can use the {{helpme}} tag to request further assistance from other editors. I don't intend to post here again. TFOWR 10:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all you are not a good reader forget about being a good editor you provided reasons you think rather in fact the reason was not proper like Here here I did not delete a quote rather I fixed it because the reference number was reflecting below line of the text. Secondly why I said you are a bad reader because I said do not threaten me to block again, hope you understand the meaning of again in English, this was with regards to your statement like this "Edit warring over this won't help, and will likely result in you being blocked again." Thirdly if, you do not wish to post here again then get out from here and leave me at peace, I have not invited you to hang around here, because your faith is not good and hence you are not good faith editor. Humaliwalay (talk) 10:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 19 September 2010 Baghdad attacks for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article 19 September 2010 Baghdad attacks, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/19 September 2010 Baghdad attacks until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Codf1977 (talk) 07:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Criticism of Sunni Islam

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Criticism of Sunni Islam, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.answering-ansar.org/ http://www.islam.tc/cgi-bin/askimam/ask.pl?q=8009&act=view, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Criticism of Sunni Islam and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Criticism of Sunni Islam, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Criticism of Sunni Islam with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Criticism of Sunni Islam. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Criticism of Sunni Islam saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talk page for some specific areas of concern. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have obtained the copyright from www.answering-ansar.org and have forwarded the permission copy via mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. - Humaliwalay (talk) 05:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ← George^talk 06:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lebanon. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Codf1977 (talk) 11:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]