User talk:Iqbal89

Welcome

Hello Iqbal89, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.
Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard — a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.
Guide to Wikipedia — A thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Iqbal89, good luck, and have fun. --Aboutmovies (talk) 06:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zakir Naik

Dear User:Iqbal89, yes, with no disrespect to you, I intend to revert your edits, which now provide an unnecessary repetition of Naik's views and refutations of criticism. His refutation in the terrorism section above are more than adequate, and a fair reading of the article directly links the issue at the heart of each section. You asked for arbitration. Good. That's reasonable. So please go ahead and initiate this. I will of course live with the consensus view that emerges from the editor community. I trust you will too. If you choose not to initiate wider Wikipedia edit involvement, I do plan to revert your edits. That is fair, isn't it? By the way, we are not the only people who edit this page. It may be that, regardless of what you think of my edits, or I think of yours, someone else may change either or both. That’s how things work. Best wishes,GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:GorgeCustersSabre, with all due respect, I find that your explanation is a tenuous one, and the revert an act that stifles the article's much needed neutrality. I am currently globe-trotting so I have no time to involve myself in such trivial matters, let alone engage in a dialogue that I regrettably foresee to be a fruitless one. Continue to do what you think is right; though, the burden of your errors are yours and yours alone however cumbersome they maybe. Peace. --Iqbal89 (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)Iqbal89[reply]

May 2012

Your recent editing history at Zakir Naik shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. SMS ^Talk 08:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]