Khello addressed your edits in Zakir Naik. You're making huge changes in the pages that are not right for Wikipedia. You cant just go in and paste huge amounts of information in any page. You have to abide by wikipedia's policies. Now from now on, please dont edit without logging in. This way we'll know who made the edits and not some anonymous IP. Second, sign your name using the sign button above. If you want to add a video and make a reference to it, you should point out where in the video the reference points to, e.g. 15 minutes, 30 seconds (or 15:30).--Matt5714:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see the TALK page before you put in your changes again ? You have a lot to learn about working in Wikipedia. --Matt5715:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mak82hyd, each time you revert, kindly spend one minute adding relevant comments on the discussion page. That helps keep track. Thanks. --Punekar02:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where in the video did Ravi Shankar say what you say he said? You should give the timeline, like I said e.g. (15:30):
Naik in this debate proved so many mistakes Ravi shankar has written in his book. In the video when Dr. Naik was proving Ravi shankar books mistakes, Ravi shankar immediately said "i agree i have made many mistakes in the book as it was written in hurry".
Now, your first sentence needs evidence. It cant be your own opinion. You have to prove which were the mistakes made and you have to do more. You're a beginner in wikipedia. Please look around and see what kind of work others have done so you can know how its done. For starters, you cant insert your own opinions. This is an encyclopedia. Every statement must be referenced properly and supported by evidence and facts and quotations from famous people already on Wikipedia. See Zakir's talk page.
hi matt
whats ur problem i have attaches the reference cant u see it pal.
Read my message carefully now:
You're not signing in your name.
You're not discussing on the Talk page of Zakir Naik before putting in the huge chunks of data that do not belong there - khello has addressed this there. Remember, if you revert changes more than 3 times in a 24 hour period, I will report you for blocking. This is Wikipedia's policy. I'll go count how many reversions you have made now.
ok i will check and sign where i should and ill give every reference dont worry just give me some time dont change it while i am writing and be impartial. mak82hyd 15:50
You can sign your name by pressing the button above. Your changes will probably be reverted by khello. I will give you time to polish up your edits and confirm to the policy. I have not seen you reply to khello on the Talk page before you did your edits, so ideally I should revert your changes again but I'll give you time for now. If you do anything again like this, without seeing the talk page here, I will revert your changes and then if you revert back more than 3 times, you'll be reported for blocking.
Now again, WHERE in the video does Ravi say that he made mistakes etc? Or do you expect people to see the whole 40 minute video?--Matt5715:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hi matt thanks for ur help
matt the debate between Dr. Zakir and RAvi shankar is 3 hrs and 10 min long not 40 mins anyways to my sentence where it says zakir proved ravi shankar books mistake, the reference is in lot of places but ill give u one ref i.e time 2:00:01 and ravi shankar telling he wrote in hurry and it contains lot of mistakes, reference is 2:05:00 plz check it if u wana know http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8457665130451146736
so please put my changes back
and i am coming with more
thanks --Mak82hyd16:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hi matt u seems to be active on ali sinas page can u tell me why only 1 website is given in all references i.e around 20 times and how can u give his website as reference. if u think ali sina website is telling the truth and why do u think zakir naik is telling lies why dont u take hios website as reference and put it 20 times in his biography and write good about him rather than critisize it as it is his biography page.
this looks like hypocrisy as zakir is critisized on his biography and ali sina has been showen as clever and right whereas in ali sina biography ali sina has been shown as truth and zakir as again liar. dont u think it is like that. please explain Mak82hyd18:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What you have said should be explained in the Talk page of Ali Sina. Remember, if you revert anything 3 times in 24 hours, this is a violation of the 3RR rule which can be used to block you from editing, so be careful on the reverts. Now, about Ali Sina: that is HIS page. It will contain links about HIS website. If you have anything to add on the criticism section, it MUST NOT BE YOUR OWN opinion. I wonder if you even understand this. You can add anti-Ali Sina links as well, as long as they are appropriate. Now go ahead, make some edits on Ali Sina. I will watch your edits and not let you wreck that page, so be careful on what you do. Do whatever you like, just make sure you're not doing anything wrong. --Matt5719:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats what I am saying matt i dont have any problem with ali sinas page coz its his page and it should have his good info as well as bad in the same way zakir naik page is his page and it should be same and only for criticism i hope u will understand.
thanks
Mak82hyd20:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to get your attention towards the Faith Freedom page. My eidts are being deleted for no reason. I have made some comments regarding the article and its presentation. which violates many of the Wiki rules.
would you like to discuss. I am not against deleting the article or anything. Rather i am for putting the article in its right perspective. for example.1) the article alleges that it has 20,000,000 visitors. I agree however i state that it has only 1200 members who write ever wrote on its fourmns. I state that all the stuff on the website is read around only 10,000 times out of the 20,000,000 visitors it had. all this has been referenced by me (site meter is the ref:)Aditionally each visitor spends 5 minutes or less on the entire site and less than 5 seonds on each page.
Then there are violations of references. No outside references are given. If given they are reports of Ali sina himself. How can that be credible when speaking about his own self.
Z2qc104:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
regarding Grand Ayatollah Montazeri this is the first time i heard his name so i dont think he is a famous authority of islam
Then it is you who is to blame, because if Grand Ayatollah Montazeri has a page on Wikipedia, he is a famous figure, otherwise he wouldnt be here. Also quoting from his bio page on Wikipedia:
(He is) .. one of the leaders of the Islamic Revolution in Iran and is a Grand Ayatollah .. and as such is considered one of the highest ranking authorities in Shi'a Islam today.
That qualifies him as a famous authority on Islam. I'm sure you wouldnt want the above to be written instead of whats there, so I summarized it. Do you have a better suggestion?--Matt5723:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the comments matt,
you are quoting from wikipedia which if i do as i am writting my dissertation u know what i am gonna get...lol i.e 0 wikipedia first of all cannot be given as reference. secondly if he really is considered one of the highest ranking authorities in Shi'a Islam today, then that proves he cant be called as "famous authority of islam" as shia constitutes 8 to 11 percent of muslim population( http://adherents.com/adh_branches.html#Islam , http://www.islamicweb.com/beliefs/cults/shia_population.htm --Acording to adherents web site and islamweb.com ) so that means he is not famous authority of islam but may be authority of shias. so we cannot use the word "famous authority of islam". as it will be unfair to 85% of sunni muslims. agree????
so my suggestion will be either just say he debated with him or say a shia scholar. i hope u will understand --Mak82hyd04:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dont care if its Shia or Sunni - its ISLAM. Shia Islam is ALSO Islam and THEREFORE, any seroius authority in Shite Islam is an authority in Islam. What do you want me to say? That he's a grand Ayotollah? Thats fine with me, it sounds even better than before. What do you suggest? I asked you for a better suggestion. --Matt5705:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mak, if you want to add quotes from Yamin, discuss this in the Talk section, or add the quotes directly. I and other editors will see later if they're appropriate. I dont think though quoting is right. There is no quoting on Ali's page from other people right now, niether there is on Naik's page as far as I know. I believe you should simply add a link to Yamin's comments. You dont want me adding quotes from Ali Sina on Naik's page now, do you? See it can get unruly. The pages have to kept simple. They're not to be 34 pages of debate. Thats not what a bio in an encyclopedia is. --Matt5706:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mak, also: you should work on trying to create a page on Yamin. I dont know if that will be approved though because I wonder if Yamin is popular enough. One has to have a certain degree of popularity to have their own page on Wikipedia. --Matt5706:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mak, I dont know what you're talking about. If there's something wrong with Ali's or Naik's biography, go ahead and try to fix it but as again, a lot of people are watching your actions so be careful in what you do. First, make sure its not just your opinion. It has to be well sourced, i.e. you have to provide links for statements. You cant make your own conclusions. Ali Sina is critical of Islam and he obviously doesnt like Islam, so you'll find lots of anti-Islamic stuff on his page. Thats what his page is about. Now if you want to add in quotes from Yamin in his criticism section, go ahead and do so for now. I'll see later if they're approriate or not and if they're not, I or someone will either delete them and give the right reason for doing so, or discuss it on the Talk page. Good luck with your dissertation. --Matt5706:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mak, see this. I'm showing you this because as you are new here, I want to show you this is the way on how to resolve these disputes - discussion. I could have reverted but endless reverting does nothing (unless the edit is outrageous, like the deletion you did before and then its ok to revert) so the right way is to discuss. I hope to see you on the talk page now, defending your contribution. --Matt5716:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mak, there's been some nice edits made on Ali Sina and I agree with the current versions by Sefringle and Tiowst. You should now work on creating more detail for Yamin Zakaria.--Matt5703:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mak82,l you talk to me before you change. I have been spending more time on that article than you have. If you revert without talking to me first, I will report YOU. You came second after me. So talk to me before YOU change. Outsider281001:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mak82hyd, to accomodate your and other editor's disagreements, the disputes tag has appeared. You are invited to discuss your viewpoint in a civilized manner on the Zakir Naik discussion page. Also, please log in before you do. --Punekar09:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mak82hyd, as part of my consensus building exercise, I've attempted a first review of the Naik article. Even though I disagree with your eidts and your sections, I have left them in there for you to rewrite. You are expected to participate in the discussion before your reverts. I will wait one week, after which I will start my own reverts. --Punekar (プネカル)05:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you not logging in while vandalizing Ali Sina?
Why are'nt you logging in? Continue vandalizing Ali Sina from your IP. Soon you wont be able to do so anymore. I've requested protection for the article. The protection is there precisely for dealing with vandals. --Matt5702:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do belive in humanity and gone through all the web sites of different religous leaders and orators-It looks to me very ugly the way Ali Sina poses and want to talk to other folks of religion - He should first try to be a good human being and project himself then only other folks can talk else it makes sense to evryone that he is not serious-
All the best Humanity is the first teaching for any religion-
I can see your IP Mak. I know you live in Britain...its very eqasy to track. Anyway, don't keep on vandalizing the Zakir Naik article when full sources have been provided. Nothing is going to take away what he said. Are you embarassed by what he really, truly said??? Look at the video links if you don't believe me. Outsider281015:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Yamin Zakaria, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Yamin Zakaria. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Ttiotsw00:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't do this. User pages are NOT in Wikipedia space so the rulings on that don't apply. I have reverted your edits to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rickyrab/Ali_Sina and the truth is we can edit war forever on that page as 3RR policy doesn't apply BUT after a while we'd feel that such edits are not in good faith. Ttiotsw19:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't the references, it's the style, which is POV "very informative" etc, and you don't actually describe the website - what it does, how it differs from other islamic sites, what its philosophy is. It's difficult to write a neutral article about something you obviously are strongly in favour of, but that's the requirement for the encyclopedia. It's not a soapbox to promulgate a particular viewpoint. jimfbleak19:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page is in Rickyrab's user space. It is not in the Wikipedia main space. That means that Rickyrab is entitled to make the page any way he would like to. Read and understand Wikipedia:User page before you reply. You could make User:Mak82hyd/Ali Sina and make that page say what you want as well. But you cannot remove content from Rickyrab's userspace. This is vandalism. I am going to revert it now. Do not vandalize his user space by changing it again. Furthermore, you said that I am either "stupid or islamophobic". I am neither. You cannot show me any comment that I have made in the FFI AfD that was islamophobic in any way. So your words constitute a personal attack, and I do not take this lightly. You may apologize, but otherwise:
As I said, "you may apologize". I'm not demanding it. I am, however, demanding that you cease personal attacks against me immediately. I really do suggest you go read my comments on the AfD again, because I know for a fact I have not made any islamophobic statements. I don't play that game. — coelacantalk — 23:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You removed the expand tag and added what I feel are spurious tags with your edit of [1]
and I have reverted this. The expand tag was added as feedback from the recent AfD in that the article was deemed to need expanding. Please don't tag articles which are clearly contentious without first discussing in talk. Please do not removed references to Ali Sina simply because you don't like him as he is clearly notable with respect to this web site and also with respect to other articles related to his contributions. Ttiotsw04:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this is not user's first instance of such attacks. See [2] and [3] (I did not claim to be an admin, I just used the warning templates you see above). If anyone else is receiving this kind of attack from Mak82hyd, please notify me on my talk page. — coelacantalk — 19:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You said to Giordaano, "talk as npov or keep it shut." Telling someone to "keep it shut" is not acceptable. Why do you feel the need to attack your fellow editors?
In that case you should'nt revert anything before checking what you are reverting. You were reverting to another user's edition and I sent him the same message here. thanks, --Matt5714:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, there -- just letting you know that some of your comments, including accusing other editors of Islamophobia (and "wikipedia is full of people like you"), or telling another editor to keep it shut, have upset a few people. Please take care to keep a cool head in discussions. If individual editors are being persistent problems, you can post to the admin noticeboards or start a request for comment regarding their behavior -- barring that, however, I will have to ask that you treat all of your fellow editors with the same courtesy that they should extend to you. Thank you. Luna Santin00:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, again. Thanks for calming down a bit. Just one more thing, for now, you might want to tone down edit summaries -- "hate" is a really strong word, it might be a good idea to use something else, next time. "Negative," for example. You can also just say "NPOV," and people should know what you mean. Just a friendly note. :) Luna Santin00:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Zakir Naik. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. — coelacantalk — 20:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit [4] has been reverted as suspected vandalism by another editor. I agree with them. The article fails to meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion on the ground of copyright violation, namely, if the material was copied from another website which does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia, or there was no non-infringing content in the page history worth saving or the infringement was introduced at once by a single person rather than created organically on wiki and then copied by another website such as one of the many Wikipedia mirrors or that the uploader does not assert permission (for images: no assertion aside from tags) or fair use, or the assertion is questionable. Ttiotsw10:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wondering why you blanked the criticism section with no comment, despite the fact that it was written in an encyclopedic fashion and cited? --Kukini21:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then please state that on the talk page and edit it to a NPOV. Deleting a criticism sections that are referenced with no edit summary nor any talk on the talk page comes across more like vandalism/blanking than anything else. --Kukini21:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mak82hyd, I'd appreciate it if you refrain from summarizing your mass reverts of a number of editors' work as "rv vandalism," as you've done.[5] Join the talk page to civilly discuss this material.Proabivouac21:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although one should discuss on talk page and write more detail edit summary. However, I did not find how his edit summary are misleading and incivil? --- ALM 21:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Please do not call other work as vandalism. --- ALM14:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ALM scientist, it is both misleading and incivil to characterize any of the very large number of edits Mak82hyd had reverted as "vandalism." Or do you disagree?Proabivouac21:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.
Mak, although i agree there has been some tendentious editing on Muhammad, too many reverts is just going to get you blocked. even if there is revert baiting, i implore you not to comply. you are far more useful to the project as an unblocked editor than you are a blocked editor. ITAQALLAH22:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Itaqallah, I am not sure that he is. What may we make of this edit summary?[6] Although we've had our differences, surely you will agree that Mak83hyd's comments are inappropriate?Proabivouac22:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proabivouac if he like bin laden then what is wrong with that? He might not believe that he has anything to do with 9/11 and he is not a terrorist. He has right to have his views. No? --- ALM14:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated Islamway.com, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamway.com and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IslamOnline until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁(❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁)13:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
button above. Your changes will probably be reverted by khello. I will give you time to polish up your edits and confirm to the policy. I have not seen you reply to khello on the Talk page before you did your edits, so ideally I should revert your changes again but I'll give you time for now. If you do anything again like this, without seeing the talk page here, I will revert your changes and then if you revert back more than 3 times, you'll be reported for blocking.
