This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I have proposed here to rename Category:Hindu terrorism to Category:Hindutva terrorism, as to be more accurate to the meaning that the terrorism is politically and nationally motivated and not religiously motivated. Please join the discussion. SilverserenC 22:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on S. Syed Ghouse Basha requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} at the top of the article, immediately below the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate), and providing your reasons for contesting on the article's talk page, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
I have removed the speedy deletion tag, as I believe the article clearly asserts his notability. I think the problem was that you used initialisms that would be unfamiliar to people who don't follow Indian politics, e.g. MLA, DMK, etc. Best to use the fully spelled-out terms in future, to avoid this sort of misunderstanding. Thanks, Top Jim (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I am a newbie to Wiki. I am not fully aware of the rules and regulations in editing articles but there is no historical citation/links and hence, I removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odaah (talk • contribs) 06:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
The article had too many issues so it was going to be de listed as a Featured article, if I did not take a strong copy edit policy. Please add information about Christians and muslism but do it with reliably sourced books or journal articles. Kanatonian (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I used the wrong term, "Dr." is not an honorific, it is a credential. However, credentials should not be used either, see WP:CREDENTIAL. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Distance locator of a city
Hello Wasifwasif, May I know the reason of removing the distance locator from Madurai article? It is a standard procedure in the IN city articles to include the distance and direction from the capital in the lead. It helps the reader to familarize the location and certainly improves the article quality. If there is no strong reason to remove it from the lead, kindly re-insert the information. Thank you, Freknsay (talk) 06:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
taking to the talk page of the article. pls follow up there.Wasifwasif (talk) 12:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I couldnt find the topic in the talk page of the article yet!! --Freknsay (talk) 06:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I have now pasted the topic there. --Freknsay (talk) 06:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
December 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to 2002 Gujarat violence appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Wasif, please stop peddling your POV and lying in the edit summary. None of the sources were removed. Only the facts, represented by those sources, have been restored by my edit. Incidentally, this incident was shown by any as a means of justifying the Gujarat Riots. If you do not stop edit warring, I'll have no other option but to report you to the Admins again. Hope, it does not come to that. Thanks.Shovon (talk) 12:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Can you show which part of the content is my POV so that it will be easy for me to remove that. Also you have lied that you have removed none of the sources. but you have vandalised these sources.
and many more. I have left some because of short of time.
Now its up to admins to decide who is vandalising. Wasifwasif (talk) 12:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Wasifwasif. You have new messages at Shovon76's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
are they really building a new junction in koodal nagar? or is the IP hyping up routine work? --Sodabottle (talk) 13:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Every week i am crossing that way. No. There is no such work going on in Koodal nagar. Its a hype. Wasifwasif (talk) 13:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Tamil Muslim
The person who has been recently editing Tamil muslim article has been blocked as a sock of a prolific sockmaster - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shinas/Archive. Since you have been reverting him in Tamil Muslim, please take a look at his additions and remove the pov/undue/false ones.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. will check and follow up. Wasifwasif (talk) 12:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
March 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from 2002 Gujarat violence. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Shovon (talk) 12:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Can you explain your reasons for your characterisation of my edit as vandalism? It doesn't seem to me that you had read either my edit summary in which I explained the removal per multiple policies (to which we could quite likely add WP:COPYVIO as well) nor the actual text you replaced which is confusing, badly written, lacks any kind of context, has a very definite agenda and and looks like a section from a rather poor term paper. Vandalism is a loaded word on Wikipedia and accusing editors in good standing of it is something you should not do carelessly as seems to be the case here. Kind regards, nancy 18:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I see you have been editing today but have not yet found time to answer my question. I look forward to your reply. Kind regards, nancy 22:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Will look into that and reply you whenever i find some long wiki time. Thanks for your patience. Wasifwasif (talk) 07:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Madani and Coimbatore blast case
wikipedia article about madani is like a biography. Coimbatore bomb blast, subsequent arrest and release was an important incident in the life of Madani. Please dont remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShMenon (talk • contribs) 09:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Citations
Any chance that you can start doing proper citations instead of these silly bare links? With 4000 edits under your belt you really should not be leaving work like this to other people. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Your comment was way reproaching but still i din't get what do you mean by ...silly bare links. Wasifwasif (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
An Invite to join the WikiProject Education in India
Hi, Wasifwasif, you are graciously extended an invitation to join the Indian Education ! The WikiProject Indian Education is an evolving and expanding WikiProject. We are a group of editors who are dedicated to creating, revising, and expanding articles, lists, categories and Wikiprojects, to do with anything related to Indian Education System(Schools,Colleges and Universities).
As you have shown an interest in article related to Education in India we thought you might like to take an interest in this growing WikiProject.Thank you for your contributions.
It's done .I added the location (city/town/village) of the mosque in the description of the file TPL Mosque.JPG . ترجمان05 (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Greetings, while your initiative in correcting the name is great, unfortunately your page move via copy-paste is not the way to go. When you copy-paste articles, the new article has no History showing how the page developed, it's lost entirely. So insted you want to use the Move button to move an article to a better title, and that way the Talk and History pages will be moved along with it. We can't move it right at the moment since we need to delete the article you copy-pasted which is taking up that space. But once Ghulam Muhammad Vastanvi is deleted, you can move Ghulam Ahmed Vastanvi to that title, and it'll be great. Please see WP:Page move for a detailed explanation on the process. Thanks again for your initiative, and it'll be all the more constructive now that you know the process and can use that to fix similar misnamings on WP. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks much. Wasifwasif (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Lists of Educational institutions in states and union territories of India
I've struck the warning (the second one) as invalid. Wasifwasif, if you don't add sources with your edits, people can add messages to your talk page. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
And I, in turn, have undone your striking, which was improper. You are at liberty to disagree with the template, and you are at liberty to say so, but not to strike it out.
All this fuss about what exactly is wrong with the edit should not obscure PaM's main point, which is that the edit is wrong, and should indeed have been removed, as PaM did. CC: I'm disappointed that you've failed to respond to that part and are concentrating on trivia instead William M. Connolley (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think you have a point. I have been focusing on some aspects of the edit, and ignoring others. But PassaMethod's edits have concerned me for a while and I wanted him to at least acknowledge some of it. I don't know the rules on whether it's allowed to strike out these templates. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Cheraman Juma Masjid
Re List of the oldest mosques in the world: your revert [1] not only restored the text you like, but also removed other valuable intermediate edits. If you must revert (which I'd argue you should not) then please take care to pick out only the text you dislike.
As for the substance: please join the discussion on the article talk page Talk:List of the oldest mosques in the world. At the moment, the view of those contributing is that there are inadequate sources, and the claim itself is inherently unlikely. If you have some special reason for believing it, please articulate it (there, not here) rather than just reverting William M. Connolley (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello A.S.Amjath Ibrahim @ Wasif Sulthan, this is regarding your edits to the aforementioned article. Firstly, reverting a whole bunch of 5-6 good edits (that improved factual content, neutrality and language of the article) without even any explanation in the changelog / summary is inappropriate and poor wikipedia behaviour. Secondly, consider the correct material that you reverted and you ended up replacing with material that was factually incorrect, biased, WP:SYNTH, WP:EDITORIALIZING, WP:WEASEL and violating WP:NPOV.
The death toll section of that article mentions the figure "5000" and cites a reference source. But that source (from HRW and TOI website) itself actually mentions the figure "2000" for the unofficial estimates of deaths during 2002 Gujarat violence. Then why are you blatantly lying and trying to cheat or play mischief by citing a source, but writing text in the actual article that is completely false and opposite of that cited source itself!
Use of contrasting phrases like "massacre of Muslims" and "mere riots" all through the intro section and second para of intro violates WP:WEASEL, WP:EDITORIALIZING and WP:NPOV guidelines of wikipedia. Moreover, not even mentioning the hundreds deaths of other community and only concentrating on the deaths of Muslims and calling deaths of only the latter community as massacre is clearly biased and POV-pushing, is it not?
Please refrain from making such disruptive and nonconstructive edits. If you wish to, please feel free to discuss here or on article's talk page. Thanks. 202.3.77.183 (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Vandalism Warning
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Thiruparankundram, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not destroy the beauty of wikipedia. Your biased religious talks can be better put in your personal website rather in wiki.
MEANINGLESS WARNING IN MY PAGE. IT'S ME WHO INVITED FOR DISCUSSION. Pls discuss in the talk page.Wasif (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject India Tag & Assess 2012 Contest
Hello friends, we are a number of editors from WikiProject India have got together to assess the many thousands of articles under the stewardship of the project, and we'd love to have you, a fellow member, join us. These articles require assessment, that is, the addition of a WikiProject template to the talk page of an article, assessing it for quality and importance and adding a few extra parameters to it.
As of March 11, 2012, 07:00 UTC, WikiProject India has 95,998 articles under its stewardship. Of these 13,980 articles are completely unassessed (both for class and importance) and another 42,415 articles are unassessed for importance only. Accordingly, a Tag & Assess 2012 drive-cum-contest has begun from March 01, 2012 to last till May 31, 2012.
If you are new to assessment, you can learn the minimum about how to evaluate from Part One of the Assessment Guide.
Part Two of the Guide will help you learn to employ the full functionality of the talk page template, should you choose to do so.
You can sign up on the Tag & Assess page. There are a number of awards to be given in recognition of your efforts. Come & join us to take part in this exciting new venture. You'll learn more about India in this way.
You removed my edits from the "Christianity and Islam" page, with a note that one of my sources (out of two) is biased. However, you allowed to remain all the unsourced, pro-Islamic material on the page. The Wikipedia page has become a biased, Islamic propaganda piece, not presenting the Christian view at all. Per Wikipedia rules, if no other source material is available, we use the best we have. We must have the Christian view presented on this page, even if it contradicts the Islamic view.
If you find out and if you are able to prove as some Islamic part is un sourced, you go ahead and remove that. wikipedia is not a place for unsourced statements. Also, your point saying, best we have to bring in biased site,is not a fair usage in wikipedia. Wasif (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
You keep removing quotes from the "International Standard Bible Encyclopedia" and "The Johannine Paraclete in the church fathers: a study in the history of exegesis," both of which are acceptable reference material on Wikipedia. When you do this, you say that "Answering Islam" is a biased site, but neither of these references are associated with "Answering Islam."
"Answering Islam" is a reliable source of refutation of Islamic arguments. If you can prove bias or error in the statements, then do so, instead of reflexively removing material sourced from it. Pooua (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Christianity and Islam Sources
You removed my edits from the "Christianity and Islam" page, with a note that one of my sources (out of two) is biased. However, you allowed to remain all the unsourced, pro-Islamic material on the page. The Wikipedia page has become a biased, Islamic propaganda piece, not presenting the Christian view at all. Per Wikipedia rules, if no other source material is available, we use the best we have. We must have the Christian view presented on this page, even if it contradicts the Islamic view.
If you find out and if you are able to prove as some Islamic part is un sourced, you go ahead and remove that. wikipedia is not a place for unsourced statements. Also, your point saying, best we have to bring in biased site,is not a fair usage in wikipedia. Wasif (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
You keep removing quotes from the "International Standard Bible Encyclopedia" and "The Johannine Paraclete in the church fathers: a study in the history of exegesis," both of which are acceptable reference material on Wikipedia. When you do this, you say that "Answering Islam" is a biased site, but neither of these references are associated with "Answering Islam."
"Answering Islam" is a reliable source of refutation of Islamic arguments. If you can prove bias or error in the statements, then do so, instead of reflexively removing material sourced from it. Pooua (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
nice photo!
It's great that you uploaded the photo you took in August 2010 of Hatoon al-Fassi to WMCommons for use in the article about her. The article looks a lot better with the photo. :) Boud (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Boud. It was shared by Sheikha Hatoon Al Fassi Herself. Wasif (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Heya, if you're going to insert Indic scripts, [in your case Tamil], please use the format: {{lang-ta|கோவை}}. Please DO NOT use [[Tamil]]:கோவை ... --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
ok. No issues. Wasif (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Avaniyapuram
Thankyou wasif. And its not that i'm from Avaniyapuram. In fact i am not from Avaniapuram. It was one among my collection. Another thing for ur surprise the author of Avaniyapuram Jallikkattu photo is not me. I got prize only for my Rekla race photo..
--Essaar (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
May 2012
Your addition to Narendra Modi 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. You've now added the copyvio three times.The next time you copy and paste text from external sources, you will be blocked. —SpacemanSpiff 11:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Given that you have been editing here long enough, you should know our copyright policy. If you have done this in other articles, please go back and address the issues. —SpacemanSpiff 11:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
News content has been rephrased already. One cannot rephrase the sections of IPC and no newspaper can claim copyright for Section names in IPC. Hence reverting my edit. Wasif (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
July 2012
Hey,
on what grounds do you think I vandalized the 2002 gujrat page? I moved one sentence into the role of government and police section and expanded it with 3 sources. Also why did you reinsert that sentence back into the godhra part? If you read the article you sourced its talking about the involvement of congress regional workers in the riots against the muslims. infact i used the same source you cited. Cliniic (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
ok I just realized you were not accusing me of vandalism. but still why did you remove the part i added in when citing vandalism by the anonymous user? Cliniic (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Wasif, the edits on the descendants part with the reference quoted seems unreliable. Being a GA nominee and with rework going on, can you please help with the other parts in the review. The earlier peer review suggested making clear demarcation between legend and history. Thanks.Ssriram mt (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
thanks Sri. cud u pls let me know how that seem to be unreliable? Wasif (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Check the comments in [[2]] - We are winding up on the GA review. Being one of the top contributors of the article, can you plese help in copy editing. Ssriram mt (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Wasif - there appears to be a contradiction between your edit to the above article on 23 August and the information in the Ramanathapuram district and Paramakudi articles which state that Paramakudi is the larger of the two towns. Regards Denisarona (talk) 05:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Removing sourced material
Please do not remove sourced material without discussing it first. Some historical figures are famous, and are often the target of vandalism. Your edits are probably not meant to be vandalism, but they look like it, since the content you keep removing is sourced. So make sure you use the discussion page in order not to be flagged as a vandal. Unflavoured (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Can u specify, which page u r referring here? Wasif (talk) 05:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The said page shall be referred to Admins and let them decide who is vandalizing. Just placing this sort of templates in my talk page doesn't mean that i am vandalizing. Any user who browses thru the page will come to know the truth. Wasif (talk) 08:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Re
First of all, WBRSin isn't vandalizing anything, he's making edits you disagree with; those aren't the same things. Secondly, he's not required to keep the notice that I banned him up, all he needs to do is adhere to said ban and he's fine. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I left a message for you at the end of August to which you didn't respond. As I explained, according to the Ramanathapuram and the Paramakudi wikipedia articles the population of Ramanathapuram is approx. 61,000 and the population of Paramakudi is approx. 82,000. This seems to demonstrate that one (Paramakudi) is bigger than the other (Ramanathapuram). I don't want to get involved in an edit war but I think that, having made the original change to the Ramanathapuram article, you should provide evidence for your change. Denisarona (talk) 12:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Ranks are decided not just by population but with area, its urban agglomeration, population density etc. Then please mention as Paramakudi is the populous town or largest by pouplation rather than simply saying largest.Wasif (talk) 12:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, so why did you not make the change correctly instead of the un-evidenced edit that you have now made 2 times. Denisarona (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I am waiting for the source. Until then i want to be in the format as above.Wasif (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
It's now fixed. Denisarona (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Wasif (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, All the institutions given in the list do exist in madurai district as i hail from that place and know about it. Rather than going for simple deletion, better you can create pages for each of the listed institutions or ask someone who has knowledge on that to do so. I myself have started for few. Until that you can place some relevant cleanup tags rather than going for emptying the page. --Wasif (talk) 05:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
It is good that you are creating the articles for Institutions in your District. You can add them to lists once you have created them. --RAT -- catch the Rat's tail 03:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Kazi Tajuddin ITI, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
It is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. (See section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. RAT -- catch the Rat's tail 04:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:
However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Martin H. (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed your recent edit, which you identified at 'biased vandalism.' But the version you reverted back to is also very biased, in a different direction. I suppose it's quite difficult to write a truly neutral article on a subject around which people have such strong feelings, but I thought I'd point out that 'an ardent hardliner' is no more neutral than 'stabbed from behind' - in fact, the wording is less neutral. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Wasif, there is nothing personal against anyone in the revert. The statement "Being a bridge connecting the North and South Tamil Nadu, the floating population crossing Madurai keeps increasing everyday and is roughly estimated to be 5lakh per day." is unreferenced and looks out of place. There is already a string on reassessment of this article and such edits support the cause. Thanks a lot for understanding. Ssriram mt (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution.
Guide for participants
If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.
What this noticeboard is:
It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.
Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! Qwyrxian (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Ushau97talkcontribs 07:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Ushau97talkcontribs 08:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
February 2013
Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Maamadurai Potruvom. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Ushau97talkcontribs 08:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I have contested tehre.Wasif (talk) 08:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Wasifwasif. You have new messages at InShaneee's talk page. Message added 09:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Wasifwasif. You have new messages at InShaneee's talk page. Message added 10:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
We are awaiting your opening statement in a Dispute Resolution case currently on the WP:DRN noticeboard. Please find the discussion here and comment when you can: link
First, please never call another editor's good faith efforts "vandalism". Per WP:VANDAL, vandalism specifically means edits that are intended to spam or make Wikipedia worse. Even if you're right and those removals a POV-pushing, they're still not vandalism. Calling them such can be considered to be a personal attack.
Second, don't forget that when we are dealing with living people, WP:BLP applies. We must be extraordinarily careful any time we make negative claims about living people--they must not only be sourced, but verified by the best quality sources. When in doubt, we must remove the information first, and then consider re-addition afterward. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
For first, I meant the intented POV pushing to worsen the article. Sorry if it had meant the other way. My intention was not that.
For second, they must not only be sourced, but verified by the best quality sources. With good number of sources available with the news, Add whatever has happened so far w.r.t. the living persons. When the matter furthers, edit and update acordingly. This is how all the articles are written. For Eg: Read article Abdul Nazer Mahdani. he is acquitted in all other cases and alleged in bangalore blast case which is still in progress and not proven. Will it be neutral to remove that piece saying When in doubt, we must remove the information first, and then consider re-addition afterward.. Please be very neutral when you enter WP.Wasif (talk) 05:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
For most WP issues, when there is contention, we usually stay with the older version of the article. For BLP cases, when there is contention, we usually stay with the information out of the article, regardless of the prior state of the article. Upon looking more closely, it looks like the info you were reverting did not fall under these provisions--apologies, I misread which edits you were reverting. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Two issues re: Saffron Terror
First, please never call another editor's good faith efforts "vandalism". Per WP:VANDAL, vandalism specifically means edits that are intended to spam or make Wikipedia worse. Even if you're right and those removals a POV-pushing, they're still not vandalism. Calling them such can be considered to be a personal attack.
Second, don't forget that when we are dealing with living people, WP:BLP applies. We must be extraordinarily careful any time we make negative claims about living people--they must not only be sourced, but verified by the best quality sources. When in doubt, we must remove the information first, and then consider re-addition afterward. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
For first, I meant the intented POV pushing to worsen the article. Sorry if it had meant the other way. My intention was not that.
For second, they must not only be sourced, but verified by the best quality sources. With good number of sources available with the news, Add whatever has happened so far w.r.t. the living persons. When the matter furthers, edit and update acordingly. This is how all the articles are written. For Eg: Read article Abdul Nazer Mahdani. he is acquitted in all other cases and alleged in bangalore blast case which is still in progress and not proven. Will it be neutral to remove that piece saying When in doubt, we must remove the information first, and then consider re-addition afterward.. Please be very neutral when you enter WP.Wasif (talk) 05:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
For most WP issues, when there is contention, we usually stay with the older version of the article. For BLP cases, when there is contention, we usually stay with the information out of the article, regardless of the prior state of the article. Upon looking more closely, it looks like the info you were reverting did not fall under these provisions--apologies, I misread which edits you were reverting. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
February 2013
Hello, I'm Toddy1. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Muawiyah I 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: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!--Toddy1 (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mecca Masjid bombing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pandering (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) 13:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Talkpage
So why did you a leave notice of vandalism on my talkpage? Which edit did you find vandalism? If you are joking, keep in mind posting fake warning will lead to administrative action. --Neelkamala (talk) 10:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Ha.. ha.. Blanking a source and adding unsourced content and warning me of vandalism. who is joking here.? Wasif (talk) 10:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Go ahead and prove it then. If you cant I may have open case against you for disruptive editing ,assuming bad faith and making false claims. --Neelkamala (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
i have already added a source. its you who vandaled that with a fake date. Prove it and settle the issue. Wasif (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
April 2013
Your recent editing history at A. P. J. Abdul Kalam 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. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Dispute already referred to India related Notice baord. Wasif (talk) 11:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Unsourced BLP content
Please do not add unsourced BLP content to articles, like you did on Abdul Nazer Mahdani. Plus, absent sources that state those exact things (for which you'd probably need a quotation), they're WP:NPOV violations. I see a number of warnings for various violations of some core Wikipedia policies above; you may want to step back a bit, read through some of these policies, and then try to comply with them. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion,
a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
Hello, Wasifwasif. You have new messages at Talk:A. P. J. Abdul Kalam. Message added 15:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Please note that "vandalism" is a very strictly defined word on Wikipedia. Full details can be found on WP:VANDAL, but the short version is that vandalism only refers to those things which are intentionally designed to make Wikipedia worse, like saying "Abdul likes to eat pork toenails. LOLOLOL." Even if the edits you're reverting on Abdul Nazer Mahdani are POV-pushing, they're not vandlism; that policy even specifically says that POV pushing is not vandalism. Furthermore, WP:NPA says that calling good-faith edits "vandalism" is a personal attack, and thus forbidden.
In general, on that article, you're edit warring. It's time for you to go to the article's talk page and discuss your suggestions. Do so civilly, without attacking other editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
And now you're edit warring on the same article. Please go to Talk:Abdul Nazer Mahdani and discuss the matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
May 2013
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Abdul Nazer Mahdani, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Enough non-neutral and biased editing from you in this article.You are doing it frequently and even removing reliable sources.Mistakes could occur but you did it intentionally.---zeeyanwikidiscutez 18:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
The only reason I didn't block Wasifwasif for calling good faith edits vandalism was because you did the same thing here, Zeeyanketu. Both of you should know better--you've been here for a while. Any more use of the word "vandalism" for good faith edits will result in a block. Period. If you can't sort this out between yourselves, use dispute resolution. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
ok I accept my mistake there,that was premature but he copy pasted the same warning on my talk page.---zeeyanwikidiscutez 07:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Apologies
Sorry, I didn't get to see your message earlier. I am not active on wikipedia anymore. Hope the issue that you wrote about is now sorted. Cheers --Wiki San Roze†αLҝ 08:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
This too non sense to say that i added the MY personal analysis.I have never added anything except 3 lines. But we have standard methods in wikipedia to improve an article by putting citation needed tag and otehr relevant tags. This warning message is to me is totally void. If you are interested in building a good WP article, what you should have done is, you should have addedre write tag at the top, citation needed tags wherever applicable in the article and then leave a talk message to the contributor who added the message (Its not me) rather than adding such irresponsible messages to my page. Blanking the entire page (while we ahve options to add relevant tags) will not help build a good WP article. Next time, if i see such void warnings as distruptive for my Good faith edits, you will ahve to be reported to appropriate people. Wasif (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to 2002 Gujarat violence appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Wasif, please stop peddling your POV and lying in the edit summary. None of the sources were removed. Only the facts, represented by those sources, have been restored by my edit. Incidentally, this incident was shown by any as a means of justifying the Gujarat Riots. If you do not stop edit warring, I'll have no other option but to report you to the Admins again. Hope, it does not come to that. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 12:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Thiruparankundram, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not destroy the beauty of wikipedia. Your biased religious talks can be better put in your personal website rather in wiki.
--Essaar (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Your addition to Narendra Modi 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. You've now added the copyvio three times.The next time you copy and paste text from external sources, you will be blocked. —SpacemanSpiff 11:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
wikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
