ServantofAllah93

October 2012

Hello, I'm Mediran. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Islamic sports without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 13:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi thank you for the nice tone in this message. Sorry I did intend to remove the section however I failed to leave an explanation sorry :( Are you familiar with the topic of Islamic sports and Islam so I can explain the issue to you?

References

Please do not remove reference from articles. It is disruptive. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

ServantofAllah93, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi ServantofAllah93! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

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 you 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. Dougweller (talk) 07:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ServantofAllah93. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 09:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2012 (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 tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or 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 they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Uploading an image

hello You can upload an image here [1] If you own the copyright of course! Kind regardsTheroadislong (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --Dougweller (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

May I inquire as to which article/page?

Click on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring - I did warn you earlier. Dougweller (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but did you see how I rephrased section to make it more palatable to all? Or was that missed? Because others were simply undoing what I did and I tried to be constructive by striking a balance. I didn't just click the undo button...Besides, I believe the reversion has made one phrase somewhat weird and clumsy "...for the fact he has brought people to Islam..." - sounds incomplete if you ask me, and I added the adjective "many" to make it have a better flow. I can go on...

Just to inform you, I am going to remove your first supposed reference to this 'edit war'. It is from a different place in the article where I removed a few words in parentheses (that unnecessarily sought to clairfy what was already obvious). So it's down to three 'edits', where the third one wasn't an undoing, I edited a few words to make it more palatable to all (I did not go back to previous revision NOR did I go to what I wanted), and to deny this is to be stubborn, because people are demaning all or nothing, because I didn't even put what I 'wanted', I put what I thought was better and more pleasing, more neutral, more objective and in the middle.ServantofAllah93 (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion spree

Please stop your disruptive editing. I noticed you have been deleting notable qualifiers such as here from multiple articles. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Pass a Method talk 23:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm SatuSuro. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Arabic language without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SatuSuro 23:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Arabic language, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You have been asked several times to not delete references in articles without at least giving an explanation. SQGibbon (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

While you may have only been once before about removing sources (in which case I apologize for my exaggeration) there are several other notices on your talk page about questionable edits. However, in the interest of assuming good faith I've struck through my previous warning. SQGibbon (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I very much welcome and respect the show of good will. You have proven yourself a just editor, not a stubborn one.ServantofAllah93 (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

ServantofAllah93, you continue to make diplomatic statements but you are also continuing to revert the article, for example this edit at 00:49 on 3 October. This must not continue. I recommend that you take a break of at least 48 hours from all editing of the article Zakir Naik, regardless of how wrong you may think it to be. Make your case for any changes at Talk:Zakir Naik and wait for others to reach a conclusion. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Madh'hab, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Usul (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Shia Islam

You changed a quote, removed a {{clarify}} with explaining and removed sourced material. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reply. (1) I changed the quote because it comes from a wikisource page, and this wikisource is a compilation of various other sources. However, the part in question has no reference, and so I maintain that the word "Maula" should not be translated and should instead link to the maula page, as it has a wide variety of meanings and however you translate it leads to bias. Irregardless, as I said, the quote has no valid reference. (2) Sorry, I was wrong in removing that, I just made the assumption it was clear and needed no clarification, seeing it again I was wrong. (3) Also, I looked up the source provided and could not track down the sentence I looked it up in Google books (a couple of results) with the page provided and could not find it. Besides, the sentence is very biased, and I am willing to say it is a simple lie in my opinion, but because I could not find the sentence in the supposed reference, that is why it was removed. On top of this, I believe I also made a half dozen or so edits that were all undone by you, however I still believe they remain valid. So looking forward to your reply, keep well :) ServantofAllah93 (talk) 11:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Most

Same problem - if he was dead, it might not matter, but we are much more strict with living people. You'd need a source. Dougweller (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Muhammad Al-Hassan Ould Ad-Dadew

The article Muhammad Al-Hassan Ould Ad-Dadew has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. reddogsix (talk) 08:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources

I note that you have removed material or sources because you don't think the sources meet WP:RS. What I don't understand is why you are adding unsourced and perhaps disputed material to articles, in particular your mentions of living people. If you add anything that might be disputed you really should add a reliable source. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Muhammad Al-Hassan Ould Ad-Dadew (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Alim and Mauritanian

Thawri (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Alim and Usul

Muhammad al-Bukhari (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Muwatta

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Hi! It looks like you removed sourced content from this article. Your edit summary called it 'name-calling material,' but I couldn't see any name-calling. 'Relatively fringe' is not an insult, just a statement of where this school of thought stands in relationship to mainstream thought. I restored it, but I could be wrong- feel free to discuss on the talk page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. The problem I had was with the "Wahhabi" label, a label that is resented and some would consider highly insulting. On top of this, the use of "wahhabi" is an anathema to some Muslims, considering it constitutes one of the names of God. I don't know the person's intent behind posting it, I presume it was good, the end result on the surface was just questionable however.ServantofAllah93 (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Madh'hab (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Alim and Usul

Sunni Islam (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Alim and Mauritanian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Improvements

Please don't take any of our differences regarding various articles personally. While we haven't agreed on every last point, I have seen many positive changes you've made on the site and I appreciate someone else taking interest in some of the same articles as I. The goal of a good encyclopedia is to provide accurate information, and thus I can never rule out the possibility that I have made edits in error; the dissent of another concerned reader/editor indicates that perhaps more changes to a given article are necessary. I also noticed that like myself, you tend to make contributions in spurts and then disappear for a while. I hope that over the long term we may both assist in positive contributions to various articles here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Madh'hab, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Alim and Usul (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Abdullah Kundé

Hello ServantofAllah93,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Abdullah Kundé for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Abdullah Kunde

The article Abdullah Kunde has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Abdullah Kunde for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abdullah Kunde is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Kunde until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)