User talk:Aliabbas aa

Welcome

Hello, Aliabbas aa, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page Crucifixion of Jesus have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

There is a page about the verifiability policy that explains the policy in greater detail, and another that offers tips on the proper ways of citing sources. If you are stuck and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Favonian (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Crucifixion of Jesus, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing report: please fix

Hello Aliabbas aa. Recently you tried to file a report at the edit-warring noticeboard. Your report is not in the proper form and it it does not even mention the article which is in dispute. Please make an effort to fix up the report. There are some instructions for reports at the top of the noticeboard. If you can't fix it, the report may be deleted without action. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Moinuddin Chishti, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shirk (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) 11:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Aliabbas aa (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was unfairly blocked due to edits on Sadia Dehlvi article, I wanted to discuss the same. The references given were actually pulled out from the main site hence could not load due to broken link, which lead User:Steel to believe it to be unsourced

Decline reason:

I agree with Bwilkins below that this block is appropriate for the reasons given in your block log. Sandstein 17:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Unfairly? You have an appalling history of edit-warring on WP:BLP articles, it looks like you actually added a "Facebook-like" link to something (seriously?), removing properly-sourced information, and generally a disruptive history on this project. Why again should you be unblocked? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Meraj Rabbani concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Meraj Rabbani, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. 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) 18:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request to admin

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Aliabbas aa (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i want to add new articles to wiki(already pending for edit), its a long time since i am blocked

Decline reason:

Your understanding of why you were blocked is clearly inadequate. I'm concerned that you would immediately begin making the same problematic edits if unblocked. Kuru (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Can you explain, in your own words and with sufficient detail, what you did wrong and how are you going to avoid it if unblocked? Max Semenik (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had indulged in edit war over an article. I was the one who reported the edit war first but I myself got blocked. So I will try not to modify that article if an edit war occurs.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Meraj Rabbani concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Meraj Rabbani, 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) 02:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Meraj Rabbani concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Meraj Rabbani, 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) 02:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Meraj Rabbani

Hello Aliabbas aa. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Meraj Rabbani".

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/Meraj Rabbani}}, 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) 11:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

request for support

Asalamalikum Dear Wikipedian,
I'm Hooperag, a fellow Wikipedian of yours and a fellow Muslim of yours. In this email I would like to ask for your support in my efforts to bring proper respect to Prophet Muhammad and the religion of Islam in Wikipedia articles.

Recently I have been working on articles about religious figures of Islam like Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (a.s.), and Imam Hussain ibn Ali (a.s.), in these articles have added appropriate terms for their respect like changing "Muhammad" to "Prophet Muhammad" and such... As in Islam we are obliged to mention these people’s names with respect, this must also reflect in text.

Unfortunately, however some Wikipedia editors are undoing all these efforts with the claim that such honorary prefixes are biased and violating of Wikipedia’s neutrality. This however could not be farther from the truth.

There are 1.6 billion Muslims on this planet, over 23% of the world’s total population. Tens of thousands of Wikipedia editors are Muslims and hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia readers are Muslims. With so many Muslims how can we let our beloved prophet and his companions be disrespected on the world’s largest encyclopedia?

Wikipedia claims they maintain such a policy to support freedom of speech and fight censorship. However I say that this gives no right for disrespect towards 1.6 billion humans’ prophet and religion. If we are to let things continue like this we will only find our religion and prophet further disrespected on Wikipedia in the coming times.

Things don’t need to be this way. I request your support as a fellow Muslim to voice your support for the usage of respectful terminology regarding the religion of Islam and Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) on Wikipedia.

Please visit the following link: [Link] and visit the section titled “Request for Respect of our Religion and our Prophet”. Once you are there comment and voice your support!

Please pass this message to as many Wikipedians as you know!

WaalaikumSalam

Hooperag (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]