User talk:Royalmaster1

Welcome!

Hello, Royalmaster1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Poti Berik (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dear,--Royalmaster1 (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Md iet (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mike V • Talk 21:22, 21 March 2015 (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).

Royalmaster1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am very much surprised to see the above decision of Admin correlating other IP cases and blaming me for any similarities. Sock puppet is a personal allegation to any editor. I request User: Mike V to see it from that angle. All Tayyibi literature mention 526 AH for Amir incident not giving specific details. Just dealing with 526 AH is not a justification at all. As I admitted without any hesitation the disliking of sumichum and Rukn discussion at Bohra page which I look at during co-relating various tayyib material. Sumichum explanations given on talk pages there looked unfair to me and I got involved. Any similarity pointed out may be coincidence (or due to affect of my interest observing various remarks of summichum and others), and a third person cannot be alleged for sock puppet on these reasons. I am feeling disheartened. Being Admin you are judge, abnormal digging may affect right decision. l have looked at archive part also, it seems this Sumichum filing case for everyone, whether right or wrong.Royalmaster1 (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Use of Mobile App is given as a justification by honorable Admin seems quite interesting. Royalmaster1 (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Royalmaster1 (talk) 04:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:45, 23 March 2015 (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.

I am very much surprised to see the above decision of Admin correlating other IP cases and blaming me for any similarities.

Sock puppet is a personal allegation to any editor. I request User: Mike V to see it from that angle.

All Tayyibi literature mention 526 AH for Amir incident not giving specific details. Just dealing with 526 AH is not a justification at all.

As I admitted without any hesitation the disliking of sumichum and Rukn discussion at Bohra page which I look at during co-relating various tayyib material. Sumichum explanations given on talk pages there looked unfair to me and I got involved. Any similarity pointed out may be coincidence (or due to affect of my interest observing various remarks of summichum and others), and a third person cannot be alleged for sock puppet on these reasons.

I am feeling disheartened. Being Admin you are judge, abnormal digging may affect right decision. l have looked at archive part also, it seems this Sumichum filing case for everyone, whether right or wrong.Royalmaster1 (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Mobile App is given as a justification by honorable Admin seems quite interesting. Royalmaster1 (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Fatima al-Sughra bint al-Husayn

A tag has been placed on Fatima al-Sughra bint al-Husayn, 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 rejected submission at Wikipedia:Articles for creation, and it has not been edited in over six months. (See section G13 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Summichum (talk) 03:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ahmad al-Mukarram

A tag has been placed on Ahmad al-Mukarram requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jerodlycett (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Syedi Fakhruddin

A tag has been placed on Syedi Fakhruddin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jerodlycett (talk) 09:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Moulai Abadullah

Hello, Royalmaster1,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Moulai Abadullah should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moulai Abadullah .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, XyzSpaniel Talk Page 11:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Moulai Abadullah for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Moulai Abadullah 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/Moulai Abadullah (2nd nomination) 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. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]