User talk:Daughter of Adam

Your submission at Articles for creation: Maulana Saad Kandhlawi (March 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Maulana Saad Kandhlawi.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

Please remember to link to the submission!

You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Belshay (talk) 07:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Deobandi, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Chris troutman[troutman] for your comment and reminder. Following was the reason for editing.

1.There is no scientific or even unscientific survey of any sort has been done to ascertain the percentage of deobandis/Barelvis etc in India. I don't know about Pakistan but in india the census only ask the religion. There is no valid published study based on valid study design,sample size, etc available in this regard. So how can one estimate the percentage of 15/20/50/90.....These were mere assumption and Wikipedia standard does not allow for such assumption to be circulated.

2. The term Wahabi in indian subcontinent is not at all good rather many times used as abusive word .so how can a person may use this to identify himself as claimed in the section. Anyway you have a right to comment and reverse it but still the above raised two points want your expert answer. Thanking you

Glad to help. In this edit you removed sourced information. Globalsecurity.org says 15%. Removing this information without an edit summary is a problem, too. While some might not being labeled a follower of al-Wahhab, it's a school of Islamic belief and the rest of the word uses labels like Wahhabi or Salafi to understand who believes what. If you disagree with this, bring it up on the talk page. Wikipedia operates by consensus, so sourced information has to remain unless you convince others that your reasoning is correct. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The

Adventure

Hi Daughter of Adam!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. Hope to see you there!

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered by Chris Troutman (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for response,Chris troutman[troutman] Globalsecurity.org says 15%. (Is it sufficient?????) You are quoting this reference, Can you please tell the when the study was conducted, What was sample size, Which statistical test was applied....You are providing a figure of 15% or 20% it is not a matter of concensus rather should be supported by some study with some research methodology. Anyway you are privileged to tell what you consider right,because you are among administrator So I should not object you but if you give a proper reference of study conducted it will be good. Thank you— Preceding unsigned comment added by Daughter of Adam (talk • contribs)

To be clear, I am not an administrator; I'm just an editor. GlobalSecurity.org is the source. They don't explain where they got their information. If you think this source isn't accurate, bring it up on on the article's talk page so we can develop a consensus. I think 15% is a fair estimate since we have no other source readily available. While you claim that you "should not object", you do object. Why? Chris Troutman (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Maulana Saad Kandhlawi concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Maulana Saad Kandhlawi, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Maulana Saad Kandhlawi

Hello Daughter of Adam. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Maulana Saad Kandhlawi".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Maulana Saad Kandhlawi}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]