User talk:Omer123hussain

April 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to List of Shi'a Muslims, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. Xionbox^₪ 07:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of Shi'a Muslims. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Xionbox^₪ 07:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Religions in india

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Religions in india, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Religion in India. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 06:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Copy-and-paste page moves

Hello, Omer123hussain. Concerning your contribution, Religions in india, a page move cannot be done by simply copying and pasting the contents of a page into a new location, as such a process does not transfer the page's edit history and therefore violates the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). As a violation of the page move process, Religions in india needs to be temporarily deleted under the speedy deletion criteria so that the page you intended to move may be properly moved in a way that will preserve its edit history. Religions in india has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If not, please refrain from editing either the page you intended to move or Religions in india until the latter has been deleted according to Wikipedia's speedy criterion G6 (non-controversial housekeeping).

If you did not intend to make a page move, then please insert the {{hangon}} tag right below the {{db-copypaste}} tag in Religions in india and state your intentions on Talk:Religions in india. An administrator will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do. Thank you for your contributions. Qwert96 (talk)

Images added to Islam in India

I think the last image changes were a bit much for the article :), there are lots of images already. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent Edits to Secunderabad

Please do not make compulsive/destructive edits to a good article. Secunderabad is not a predominantly Muslim city and therefore a mention of lesser known mosques is unnecessary. Please make the same contributions to Hyderabad, I'm sure no one would object to that.--Kurienne (talk) 10:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam, i have no objection on the domination of which ever religion on SedBad or Hyd or any other place. Where as i leave in Begumpet and study in Ranigunj i am very familiar with this are and the information i mention about the Spanis Mosque is 100% Authnetic. Please do accept the reality and do not hurt any particular. Hope for your co ordination.

Would also like to update that The lok sabha Constituency for Begumpet, Ranigunj and Bowenpally is SecBad. Which can be confirm from any of the sources if you like.Thanks for your cooperation.

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Spanish Mosque 3.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Spanish Mosque 3.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 08:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Spanish Mosque2.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Spanish Mosque2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 08:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Spanish Mosque.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Spanish Mosque.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 08:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Dairat al Maarif.JPG

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Dairat al Maarif.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 06:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Saidani maa.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Saidani maa.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 09:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Amjad-hyderabadi Photo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Amjad-hyderabadi Photo.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Amjad Hyderabadi Rubai 002.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Amjad Hyderabadi Rubai 002.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 09:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Uploaded images

Hey, I see you have a lot of copyrighted image notices here. When you upload an image you have to mark what its copyright status is. As this project is based in the United States we have to take this stuff very seriously, far more so than people do in India generally. See WP:TAG for how to do so. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Mention on Pending changes discussion

Just to let you know that I've mentioned you (very positively) at Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_February_2011#Response_to_GB105. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Tagging confusion

Hi and very good day,

Could you kindly guide me to tag all my uploaded images. though i had provided the required links and all this images are free to copy and does not require any special license to copy the image.

Please guide me as i am bit counfused in tagging the images.

Thanks for your co ordination. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Omer123hussain

Looking through the images you've uploaded only File:Amjad-hyderabadi_Photo.jpg looks acceptable as its of a person who is no longer living and thus a "fair use" image is acceptable.

For the other images I'd suggest you go and take an image yourself. If you look on Flickr only images which are creative commons licensed for commercial use and which are modifiable are acceptable - you can specify this with the Advanced search. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Anwarullah khan farouqi

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

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

A tag has been placed on Anwarullah khan farouqi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. NortyNort (Holla) 08:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

hi,

May you kindly reload the article Anwarullah khan farouqi, so that i can update it with other references and more information.as i started this article today, i thought of update the referenceses one by one, any how there are many other sites which provide the information about the article anwarullah khan farouqi. Thanks in advance--Omer123hussain (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Kind reminder,

Actually most of the reference for theis article are in urdu language and i am searching the books and references which could give the proper reference, if you could reload this article i will update it with the relevant references and information.--Omer123hussain (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It was User:Quarl that actually deleted the article. That administrator can restore the article for you. The problem with it was that the text was copied/pasted from the reference into the article. See WP:COPYPASTE for more guidance and as always, use your own words. Also, consider creating the article in your user space before moving it into the article space.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles you have created

Hello. It's nice to have you onboard editing. But unfortunately some of the articles you have created do not conform to our policies. Some of them read like a personal essay, which is not encyclopedic. Please read WP:YFA for guidelines on creating articles.

Also please do not add urdu titles to random articles. Non-English titles of any language are added only if the language is official to that place or person.

If you need any help, please feel free to ask me on my talk page. I'd be glad to help you out. Enjoy your time editing here. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 08:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Can you give some examples of what isn't appropriate? Because I don't really understand and I have 15000 edits :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Old City Hyderabad reads like an essay. Gunfoundry had unreliable sources which I removed. But Spanish Mosque is a well written article. He's really doing good work. I only gave him some advice. But Old City Hyderabad and Gunfoundry need some cleanup. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 09:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from now :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Dear Abhishek,

I started this rticle gunfoundry today, i need 2-3 more days to make it more perfect. Kindly reload, if any edit is require please do not delete the article, kindly put the note so tat we can update it. the article old city hyderabad is open and can be edited or catagorized if required. Thanks

I would never nominate the articles you have created as you have taken a lot of effort in doing so and I really appreciate that. I gave you some advice so that some other editor reviewing the article may not tag it for deletion. Please do not take it as a criticism but as some advice. Thanks, —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 09:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Eraserhead1, where do I come from? —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 09:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Its a British phrase :). What I mean is that I see your point, Old City Hyderabad does give off an impression of being a bit essay-like to me as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I had catagorized the Old City Hyderabad kindly advice, for furthere improvement, i am really motivated with both of your comments and advices, dear abhishek very thanks for the commets, it really helpd me a lot.

Thanks once again.

abhishek or eraserhead1 i shall be greatful if any of you can help me to upload the pictures.

i mean if you can show me the procedure step by stem, as i am confused with the most of the code words. Thanks and Regards.

Erasehead1, gotcha.

Omer123hussain, it's our pleasure and wikipedia needs more editors like you. One last piece of advice, please sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message.

Regarding uploading images, please read the guidelines for the same at WP:UPI. Cheers!—Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 10:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice.--Omer123hussain (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four halfwidth tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the advice.i hope i am correct now,--Omer123hussain (talk) 10:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Omer123hussain. You have new messages at Abhishek191288's talk page.
Message added 10:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

References

Please go through WP:V and WP:RS to know what can be added as a source in an article. Adding blogs as sources is considered spamming. Thanks, —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 05:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do not edit when you see the following meaasge in an article. Thanks

—[[User:Abhishek191288|Abhishek</--Omer123hussain (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)b>]] ^{Talk to me} 05:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

ok Thanks,--Omer123hussain (talk) 05:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the categories as firstly, they aren't put in a proper way and secondly, they are not relevant. A fello editor User:Shyamsunder is well known for categorising articles of India. I'll ask him to categorise Gunfoundry. Cheers! —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 06:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I have wikilinked Nawab Mir Nizam Ali Khan here. Please check if I have linked it to the correct page. Cheers! —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 07:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks for your effort to organizing the article. that is the correct link youv made to Nawab Mir Nizam Ali Khan. Thanks once again. --Omer123hussain (talk) 07:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Kindly guide for the article Medak Cathedral to make it more organize. Thanks and Regards.--Omer123hussain (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

26 April 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Shia Islam, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Pass a Method talk 18:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

A very good day, All the listed branches are with references, some of them have more than 2-3 references. the summarized list will give a quick reference to the viewer, and will help them to understand the article more easily.--Omer123hussain (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can 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 you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. I have no opinion on the content itself, but your additions have been removed by 3 separate editors. You should be attempting to get consensus on the talk page for inclusion instead of simply reverting. Onorem♠Dil 19:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to discuss this one :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

==Shia Islam, summarized list of branches in shia==

Hi, and a very good day, kindly reload the sub section, the purpose of keeping the list is to provide the over view for the viewers who dont know much detail about the shia, by referring the list of branches they may reach to the particular branch directly and read it, rather then searching the entire article/section. the list is provided concerning the time consumption and removing the confusion.this will build the relation of the viewers with wiki.if any correction is required they may do it, but removing the entire list is not justifiable. Plz advice and reply.--Omer123hussain (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Appology

Hi, I didn't get the reason for your Apology. As per logs I can't see that you edited any of my pages. What was the apology all about? Please respond on my talk page. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 09:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

OK! Anyways little talk doesn't harms anyone. Keep going and happy editing. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 09:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Number of Fatima

Regarding, Fatimah (being sole daughter or not), see Genealogy of Khadijah's Daughters. As far as Shi’as are concerned they believe that Hazrat Mohammed SAWA had one daughter (Bibi Fatima Zahra (SA)) and one son (Qasim ibn Muhammad AKA Abd-Allah ibn Muhammad). Unfortunately Hazrat Mohammed SAWA’s son (Qasim ibn Muhammad AKA Abd-Allah ibn Muhammad) died in an early age. And because of that the Shi’as believe that Hazrat Mohammed SAWA’s family extended from the family of Imam Ali (AS) and Bibi Fatima Zahra (SA) children. Tabatabaei's book "Shia Islam" p. 191 calls Fatima, the prophet's "sole beloved daughter". But I think we should just be inclusive and mention all theories. Like for example "X says this and Y says that". And atleast we can spare lede from the topic which is not accepted by all parties. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 11:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

in this regards as a senior editor in WP you should mention the reason for reverting the edits, I hope there is some policy WP is following for reverting the edits and it applies to every person senior or fresher.

• Second point: if this article is about some person who is inspiration for multi sects, why not update with the perspective according to both X and Y point of view, as far i understand WP allows it. it will provide the complete information to the viewers. as what is done with the articles Like , jesus, moses and etc, please advice for further..--Omer123hussain (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Regretfully revert option does not have provision to provide reason.

Second point: I have already said, "I think we should just be inclusive and mention all theories. Like for example "X says this and Y says that". " but I also said, "we can spare lede from the topic which is not accepted by all parties".

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 12:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing for article Aisha

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. It is in relation to your posts at User talk pages of User:5faizan & User:Muhammad Hamza.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 07:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think what you actually want is a WP:Third opinion ;). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

its not canvasing at all, thats waht is your thought Mr SMFH, i want some senior and neutral person to involve in this edit as you Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider is misusing your authority. for articles Fatimah and Shia islam in india your openion is different and for Aisha its different, and based on your openion you are justifying the articles, and simply refusing to accept the reality.--Omer123hussain (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Definitely WP:Third opinion is the way to go for that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your request for input on "Help require for the articles Aisha , Fatimah and Shia Islam in India" on my Talk: if you feel there is an issue, I suggest you post an improved version of the same complaint on WP:WikiProject Islam's Discussion page, with the following modifications: remove any emotion or frustration from it and speak purely in objective terms, stick only to the immediate facts of what Haider or others have done rather than speculate as to motive, and absolutely provide the "diff" showing changes you feel were inappopriate. To obtain the "diff", go to the page's History tab, use the little click circles to get the page showing a comparison between your Edit #X and Haider's Edit #Y, and then add that in brackets to your complaint as a clickable link. As it is now, we'd have to manually search for exactly what situations are displeasing you, but if you provide a list of diffs it makes it a ton easier. I suggest listing out a half-dozen or so diffs and making a bulleted list: provide the diff link, and a brief explanation like "Haider here removed a link to an academic work and substituted a primary source from the Quran" (being the case that editors on WP by policy are not certified as qualified to provide their own interpretations of the Quran or other primary documents) or "here this neutral language about Aisha has been changed to a very negative tone." Note: I have not checked into this, so am not taking a side, I am just strongly recommending that you arrange and document your argument to make it easy for other editors to see exactly what is concerning you; otherwise it's just your opinion/allegation and would take each person an hour or more to properly look into the matter. I hope this issue can be resolved amicably by a clear layout of what concerns you have, and then the opinion of other editors, possibly through the above "third opinion" page. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Warning: Stop accusing on sectarian basis!

Yes I'm Shia Muslim & I don't hide it. But that doesn't stops me to tag and remove sections on Aisha which are negative to her e.g. event of adultery, her role in fitna, etc. I have tagged sources in those sections also. Even I have tried to include the edits & ref but you over-zealousness back fired. And I don't have any special authority in WP I'm just another common editor the thing is I play by rules and not sentiments. I try to be impartial while reviewing any work as I did here on this Article. Since the day you have joined on WP you have reported me to at least half dozen editors on sectarian basis if next time you do that I'll report your actions, I have been tolerating your words just for the reason that you are new to WP & I don't want to be reason of shooing you away from WP. Haven't you learnt anything by suggestions given to you by various editors on your & their & articles talk pages.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 17:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It's you, who is doing that??--Omer123hussain (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm doing what? Bring your proofs and we'll see.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 18:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

check my answer below. beyond, for my tags you reverted saying,its mass taging where as you did that again and again, when i inquired you gave me wrong info saying mass taging not allowed, for which i need to reach some senior persons who could help me to adhere to policy of WP. do you need any more info why i reached editors page????????

Seeking info is another thing & putting allegation is another.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 19:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Re:stop showing your personel jelious

Do not show your personal Hatered on WP articles.--Omer123hussain (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Voila! Am I being jealous. I didn't went on WP editor's page pleading for intervention against you (but you did against me). i didn't pointed out your sect e.g. I never said that you are Sunni may be wahabi or salafi or nasibi, etc (but you seemed to show your hatred toward my community and kept accusing my actions based on my sect). Now when I tried to counter you, you accuse me of your deeds and sentiments. Correct yourself or you'll be reported.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 18:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

its your misunderstanding, hardly i know you since last week, do not blame me. Its you who is highlighting, yourself that you belongs to so and so,not me.check your discussion whit me on talk page Fatimah where you did that again and again,and try to de-motivated me rather than providing suggestions. its ok to me if you are shia or any person, there are many shia in the world, i don't have any problem. let them have issue with Ht Aisha(RA) or Ht Mohammed(PBUH) its there fate, not mine. I never mention my religion like what you did un-necessary.

Can you find any of your discussion which give a single word of suggestion,or advice or motivation. on my every edit you tried to directly de-motivate me. and you try to break my trust from WP.

Check what Cúchullain and mathew had done, they had clarified the doubt and also he gave the suggestion from where i can get my sources verified. rather you was initially just reverting the edits though you knew me as a new at WP and misguided me many times giving wrong info about WP policy.

and not only me but every person learns and experience new things every day with every suggestion and action he see's around him.--Omer123hussain (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you give reference of where I said that I'm Shia on the discussion involving you? And now also your don't refrain putting allegation on me & Shias by your comment, "let them have issue with Ht Aisha(RA) or Ht Mohammed(PBUH) its there fate, not mine". i have been trying to persuade you to put up case and have shown you how to do it by pointing you towards article aisha's talk's archives but you seem not to notice my suggestion. I have been most polite to you and have not violated any WP guidelines for User engagement. But you have been putting case against me at various editor's talk pages, and here are those edits:

• User talk:Usman.shaheen
• User talk:5faizan
• User talk:Muhammad Hamza
• User talk:MatthewVanitas
• User talk:Cuchullain

Apart from this you have raised allegations against me at Talk:Fatimah & Talk:Aisha & User talk:Faizhaider.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 19:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I think both of you guys need to chill out and have a couple of weeks break ;). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually I was in snooze state since December but current action by Mr 123 triggered me out of my hibernation state. I have been trying to ignore his activities but they were not subsiding so I thaught may be ignoring is encouraging him so I tried to directly addressed the issue. I'm still avoiding to report anybody (I usually try to avoid such things until extremely necessary), especially seing novice status of the user. Hopefully he corrects his ways.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 02:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

When Mr.F, without giving reason or discuss on talk page he started reverting the articles (check his reverts which he make for my edits in starting), and later when asked he started given un related reasons for his reverts and mis guided me,(check his reply to me, on 05/05/2011 on the article Fatimah, check the way he is humiliating the users and discouraging them), this all make me to ask for the help from some one who may be familiar with the policies and standards of WP. Hopefully he will view all the articles with one perspective, then every thing will go alright. --Omer123hussain (talk) 05:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

May the 5^th was yesterday, when I started to address your accuses before that I have been trying to pursue you to build case. It was I who initiated duscussion on all concerened articles. Taking help from others is another thing and trying to build a block against individual is another thing. You have not even taken heed of advices given to you by those users also. You don't correct yourself but keep blaiming me for all the fuss for which infact you are responsible. It is you who is working in retaliation who is trying to evn the scores of aisha's article with that of Hz. Fatima's. Both articles are different, We have extensively worked to make aisha problem free and balanced, you just need to see it's history before December'10 that what a mess it was and what discussion we did to fix it up. Have you seen that, I don't think so becuase if you would have then you would have not accused me and would yourself had taken similar steps regarding articles you are concerned about.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 07:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Guys, I'm sure you're both great contributors to the project, but this isn't productive. I suggest you step out for a couple of weeks, and if that doesn't allow you to solve the issues after that time check out Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks EH1 for your suggestion, I can go back to my hole if concerned articles are left at least as it is, it would have been better if all this energy coud have been used to make the articles better but alas simple request to adhere process was not taken into consideration & instead accusation & canvassing was initiated.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 07:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Remember WP:WRONGVERSION ;). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding it :).--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s

07:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Eraserhead1 for your advice, i am stepping back for a short period as adviced, mean while i could collect some reference for further organizing the article Ht Aisha and Fatimah which could meet the standards of WP. Mr.F, I understand both the articles Ht Aisha and Fatimah are different but the police of WP is applied same to both. Please do not humiliate me in your replies next time. thanks once again --Omer123hussain (talk) 09:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope i am posting under the right heading here. Thanks for inviting for Aisha edit. I am currently busy in my studies which is why it might be difficult for me to edit in next few months. I can do some CE though. On a completely separate note, i read the discussion above and i'd say what eraserhear1 has said... you both need to chill out. :) Go easy on each other. It is a sensitive topic, thus it requires similar care. This is why i stopped editing Aafia Siddiqui because i thought my personal opinion might distort the NPOV. You both need to realize that the purpose here is to put information and not opinion. I'll try to contribute in next few days. Meanwhile... Yo Man, Pepsi Can !  :) —  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 14:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

thanks once again, its a precious advice for me...appreciate your approach --Omer123hussain (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

Your addition to Dargah Yousufain has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. BelovedFreak 22:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Please advice, if i can proceed with the article using the references from other book sources.Thanks --Omer123hussain (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You can still use the Times of India article, just don't copy it - write it in your own words.--BelovedFreak 23:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the advice.--Omer123hussain (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

could not find created article in list

I could not find the article Anjuman E Mahdavia in my created articles list, as I created this article today, please advice.--Omer123hussain (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

its ok now, thanks --Omer123hussain (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Timotheus Canens or others

kindly view the history of Omer123hussain, What ever discussions are there i made it by my self, i never used any false id's to support my edits to work on WP. I understand, when i discussed with my friends about my work on WP, may be any of them might have created account and try to support my work. but its not true that i used other (false) accounts to support my edit. for my every edit since begning i used my own id, though i am only one month new on WP, i did my best to follow WP standards, what ever i was adviced by the administrators and senior regular editors i followed those WP policies. though i agree may be some time i did mistakes un-intentionaly, but i never used any false id to support my work. Kindly unblock my id. Kindly advice? --Omer123hussain (talk) 04:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Omer123hussain (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

as a user Omer123hussain please check my contribution and history, i went for long discussion but never used any false id's to support my edits or contribution. though i agree may be some time i did mistakes un-intentionaly. I understand, when i discussed with my friends about my work on WP, may be any of them might have created account and try to support my work, for my every edit since begning i used my own id, though i am only one month new on WP, i did my best to follow WP standards, what ever i was adviced by the administrators and senior regular editors i followed those WP policies, Kindly advice and unblock my id --Omer123hussain (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Checkuser-confirmed sockpuppetry per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Omer123hussain.  Sandstein  07:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I haven't look at detail at this case but I have to say I think an indefinite block is pretty harsh even assuming the worst and this guy has made positive contributions to the project. If the unblock is declined the term should be reduced to something more reasonable. Discouraging new editors from editing forever just because they screw up occasionally isnt sensible for the future of the project. We all screw up from time to time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Of note per the policy Wikipedia:BLOCK#Duration_of_blocks it appears a 24 hour block is generally considered appropriate for first time policy violations. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Omer123hussain (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Dear Administrators, i am still learning the policies and coding of WP, i never created or used the id's woodenmetal, googly1234, mujahidahmed to jsutify my edits. if i needed help i asked from other users, as you may see i went thru long edit war and other discussions but the idea of false id to support my edits is not used by me. Hope you will sympathitically consider my request and allow me to work with WP team for never endig.--Omer123hussain (talk) 08:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

A Checkuser would need to review this. And there was more evidence than that. — Daniel Case (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Omer123hussain (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

So a checkuser can review the case.
I haven't look at detail at this case but I have to say I think an indefinite block is pretty harsh even assuming the worst and this guy has made positive contributions to the project. If the unblock is declined the term should be reduced to something more reasonable. Discouraging new editors from editing forever just because they screw up occasionally isnt sensible for the future of the project. We all screw up from time to time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. While you are welcome to speak up on behalf of the blocked editor - and your comments are noted - you cannot file an unblock request on their behalf. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Omer123hussain, it appears that the other named users edited using the same IP and/or computer as your account, thus indicating that they are the same person - and, thus, the block. In cases where multiple editors share a network (at a college or workplace, for example), technical data can show that multiple computers used the same IP - but nothing of that sort is indicated here, from the report. Is there any way you can explain the checkuser findings? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The best thing you can do here is to be honest about it, its also possible that regardless that the term can be reduced. I've recently seen another case where another user was blocked for first time sockpuppetry for 24 hours. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Omer123hussain (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Dear Administrators,Firstly: please note that the IP address im using is in work place, and you might check this address is already blocked for edits since long before may be because some of our collegues might have used this IP for edits and it got blocked. Second point: i discussed to my collegues about the miss use of the information for the article Shia islam in india as Asif Jahi Nizam's and Bahmani dynasty were sunni rulers in southern india (please check those dynasties, even wrong reference is given in the article for bahmani dynasty for encyclo iranica, which is not correct as that doesnot mention bahmani as shia rulers) but they were placed in article shia islam in india. for which one of my college wanted to deal and he showed his intrest in WP by creating the ID and removed that particular info, when i was informed about it, i corrected it to related article.Just imagine, why will i create an id to just remove the information? and use my own id to place it in correct article? as i informed, i am still learing the policies and standards of WP ( i was not even aware that this step of my will be consider socketpuppet), you might see my previous records, for even single word and letter of edit, i have give reason and clarification. then why will i go for false id to justify my edits? Kindly deal this issue with senario explained above, concerning my joining date, Please kindly unblock my id. hope for the positive responce from you all admins.thanks --Omer123hussain (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Dear Administrators,Firstly: please note that the IP address im using is in work place, and you might check this address is already blocked for edits since long before may be because some of our collegues might have used this IP for edits and it got blocked. Second point: i discussed to my collegues about the miss use of the information for the article '''Shia islam in india''' as '''Asif Jahi Nizam's''' and '''Bahmani dynasty''' were sunni rulers in southern india (please check those dynasties, even wrong reference is given in the article for bahmani dynasty for encyclo iranica, which is not correct as that doesnot mention bahmani as shia rulers) but they were placed in article '''shia islam in india'''. for which one of my college wanted to deal and he showed his intrest in WP by creating the ID and removed that particular info, when i was informed about it, i corrected it to related article.Just imagine, why will i create an id to just remove the information? and use my own id to place it in correct article? as i informed, i am still learing the policies and standards of WP ( i was not even aware that this step of my will be consider socketpuppet), you might see my previous records, for even single word and letter of edit, i have give reason and clarification. then why will i go for false id to justify my edits? Kindly deal this issue with senario explained above, concerning my joining date, Please kindly unblock my id. hope for the positive responce from you all admins.thanks --[[User:Omer123hussain|Omer123hussain]] ([[User talk:Omer123hussain#top|talk]]) 04:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Dear Administrators,Firstly: please note that the IP address im using is in work place, and you might check this address is already blocked for edits since long before may be because some of our collegues might have used this IP for edits and it got blocked. Second point: i discussed to my collegues about the miss use of the information for the article '''Shia islam in india''' as '''Asif Jahi Nizam's''' and '''Bahmani dynasty''' were sunni rulers in southern india (please check those dynasties, even wrong reference is given in the article for bahmani dynasty for encyclo iranica, which is not correct as that doesnot mention bahmani as shia rulers) but they were placed in article '''shia islam in india'''. for which one of my college wanted to deal and he showed his intrest in WP by creating the ID and removed that particular info, when i was informed about it, i corrected it to related article.Just imagine, why will i create an id to just remove the information? and use my own id to place it in correct article? as i informed, i am still learing the policies and standards of WP ( i was not even aware that this step of my will be consider socketpuppet), you might see my previous records, for even single word and letter of edit, i have give reason and clarification. then why will i go for false id to justify my edits? Kindly deal this issue with senario explained above, concerning my joining date, Please kindly unblock my id. hope for the positive responce from you all admins.thanks --[[User:Omer123hussain|Omer123hussain]] ([[User talk:Omer123hussain#top|talk]]) 04:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Dear Administrators,Firstly: please note that the IP address im using is in work place, and you might check this address is already blocked for edits since long before may be because some of our collegues might have used this IP for edits and it got blocked. Second point: i discussed to my collegues about the miss use of the information for the article '''Shia islam in india''' as '''Asif Jahi Nizam's''' and '''Bahmani dynasty''' were sunni rulers in southern india (please check those dynasties, even wrong reference is given in the article for bahmani dynasty for encyclo iranica, which is not correct as that doesnot mention bahmani as shia rulers) but they were placed in article '''shia islam in india'''. for which one of my college wanted to deal and he showed his intrest in WP by creating the ID and removed that particular info, when i was informed about it, i corrected it to related article.Just imagine, why will i create an id to just remove the information? and use my own id to place it in correct article? as i informed, i am still learing the policies and standards of WP ( i was not even aware that this step of my will be consider socketpuppet), you might see my previous records, for even single word and letter of edit, i have give reason and clarification. then why will i go for false id to justify my edits? Kindly deal this issue with senario explained above, concerning my joining date, Please kindly unblock my id. hope for the positive responce from you all admins.thanks --[[User:Omer123hussain|Omer123hussain]] ([[User talk:Omer123hussain#top|talk]]) 04:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I've fixed the template, so that an uninvolved administrator can review your request. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

On a note, I believe the indefinite block of this account is too harsh as the user has recently joined wikipedia and as with many newbies would have probably been unaware of the sockpuppetry policies. This user has contributed constuctively and an indefinite block would be a discouraging factor for new users. As pointed out by User:Eraserhead1, in a similar case, this user was blocked for 1 week. Omer123hussain, it is best that you be honest about the issue so that your block duration could be reduced. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 12:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Its worth pointing out, that as Omer123hussain comes from a poorer country than most editors here so that if he edited in an internet cafe, or even at college, they could easily share an IP address with another completely separate user.

I would have thought the majority of internet users in India would use an internet cafe rather than their own computer. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

dear checkuser, above i had given the circumstance in which we had created id, but it was all in goodfaith, in future i will not ask for help from outside, kindly unblock my id, i feel very seprated without WP . hope you understand and thanks for all (administrators and senior users) of your advices --Omer123hussain (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

any update please --Omer123hussain (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I've requested that the blocking admin takes a look at this. I'm not wildly impressed by the lack of admin response here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I ran a CU myself, and I concur with the CU results in that SPI case. Moreover, one (bloody obvious) sock was missed: Omer123hussain123 (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 19:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Regardless the punishment needs to fit the crime. The current punishment is excessive. The only additional evidence that is worth bringing up are any sock-puppets that were active after this block was made - especially any that are still being used. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Omer123hussain @ User_talk:Ultraexactzz

In re: [1] - You're welcome to comment on my review of this editor's block, or even to disagree. But you cannot remove unblock requests from the talk page of a blocked user while they remain blocked. The fact that it is not actually your talk page is unusual, to be sure - but the rule stands. Once they are unblocked, if they wish to clean the talk page, no problem - but the reviewed block requests need to remain for other admins to read, if and when the user goes to post another unblock request of their own. Please do not revert again on this issue. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

As I'm not the user in question and you declined the unblock request on a technicality the harm from reverting your edit seems really rather limited. I've discussed the matter further on your talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I've asked the editor for more information - but, honestly, the checkuser data seems pretty damning (from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Omer123hussain). In most cases I see, another checkuser would stop by and say "Yup, confirmed" and that would be that - so having an additional checkuser would be of limited use. Rather, if there's something that might mitigate the results - university LAN or some such - maybe he can make a case for unblocking, if restricted to one account, 1RR, or some such. Note also that we can't unblock while we wait for a checkuser; blocking doesn't prevent further review. Hope this helps. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't have an issue with the block per-say just the duration. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request for Omer123hussain @ User_talk:Ultraexactzz#Unblock_request_for_Omer123hussain @ User_talk:Eraserhead

I have no doubt that the block in question is justified for at least a short time - possibly a week or so. However it is the user in question's first block and the current block seems excessive. Omer123hussain has also made a large number of good edits to a number of articles, and without them those articles wouldn't have been improved.

While technically making an unblock request for another editor is against the rules, I don't see any possible harm from making one on the users behalf. There is a banner at the top of my screen asking "Wikimedia to become more open and collaborative" - what you've done is achieving exactly the opposite of that.

Technically as well I suppose I could raise the stakes of the game and start a thread on WP:ANI about the matter, but that just raises everyone's blood pressure and achieves little - all I'm asking you to do is to look at the merits of the case. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Replied. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Block of Omer123hussain @ User_talk:Timotheus_Canens

Blocking this user indefinitely seems really rather excessive given they are a new editor and they have made lots of good content contributions, can you reconsider the duration? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Is being new a good reason to be violators of more than one policies after all we all have been new at one or another point of time and we didn't started our career by SP, canvassing, abusing, etc. Additionally user didn't paid heed to suggestions given to him by various other editors. User's talk page and article talk pages where user has been involved may be referenced for details. If in any case block is reduced to finite term (which I don't suggest) the user should be explained that he should take a deep breath and try to understand the WP & it's working before hitting the pedal.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 18:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The reason it shouldn't be indefinite is that people make mistakes. Besides User:BabbaQ was only given a week block for sockpuppetting, and he hasn't even got the excuse of being new. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

That argument might be stronger if I was the one who blocked BabbaQ. Anyway, I'll get a checkuser to take another look. T. Canens (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

To an extent admin discretion is a fair point; however it doesn't stretch between a week and an indefinite block. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Of note per the policy Wikipedia:BLOCK#Duration_of_blocks it appears a 24 hour block is generally considered appropriate for first time policy violations. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry blocks has always been longer, for the simple reason that while it is possible to, say, unintentionally breach 3RR in the heat of the moment, you can't unintentionally operate sockpuppets, especially not over a period of time. It's categorically different. I'm disinclined to reduce the block length when the user isn't even admitting it. Between the similar interests, the similar edit summary style, and the checkuser findings, there's not much room for doubt that these are the same person. T. Canens (talk) 08:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

isn't even admitting, yes that is also one of the characterstics of the user which have raised concern. The user doesn't seems to admit anything and at most of times tried to hide behind new curtain. IMO & observation this user itself may be SP of some older user because at times the conversation from the user seemed to be quite mature for new user e.g. from initial days onwards the user asked for guidelines & policies from other editors to support their acction & views, I have rarely seen such requests from new users. If the user was aware that for any action & iew you need to have some WP policy &/or guideline in support then the user must also be aware that the same applies on the actions & views of the user. Also new users are rarely seen doing canvassing & propaganda campaign amongst other users for support, etc. IMO user seems to be well aware of the WP policies & guidelines (at least general ones) and was just trying to play dirty game on excuse of being new.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 10:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Lack of promises and admission

As an independent admin (though admittedly not very active anymore), I came across this case and looked into the accounts, accusations, and the pleas of Eraserhead and Abishek. My conclusion here is that this user definitely did something intentional and isn't owning up to it. UltraExactzz pointed out above that there are no indications there might have been different computers on the same IP address used by these accounts. Also, there's [[::User:Omer123hussain123|Omer123hussain123]] (talk · contribs) which I cannot believe is a "colleague." While a 1-week block instead of an infinite block may have been justifiable as the action in the first place, overturning an indefinite block while the user is still dodging his actions, and has not made assurances to refrain from such abuse in the future, cannot really be on the table. I'm stopping short of declining this unblock only because I'm so inactive on Wikipedia that I can't promise to be around to discuss it. Also, this gives Omer a chance to respond before yet another unblock request is declined. Mangojuice^talk 14:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)