User talk:ScholarM/Archive 1

Peer Jamaat Ali Shah

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Peer Jamaat Ali Shah, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.nfie.com/amiremillat.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 10:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

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.

Manipur

added a link pointing to Baghdadi

Nomination of Syed Muhammad Hashmi Ashraf for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Syed Muhammad Hashmi Ashraf 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/Syed Muhammad Hashmi Ashraf 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. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Maulana Abdul Hamid Qadri Badayuni

added a link pointing to Muslim League

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hijrat and Muslim League. 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) 10:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sufism in Bangladesh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Soharwardi. 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) 11:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 13 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Shuddhi page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Nurul Islam Farooqi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nurul Islam Farooqi 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/Nurul Islam Farooqi 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. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 06:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Arain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rampur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 14:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

This needs your attention

Assalamu Alykum, dear friend. Please have a look at Maulana Sardar Ahmad and let me know if you can do some copy editing there. Jzk - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 17:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Walekumassalam, i tried to do little bit. Please have a look and do what is necessary. Jzk.- ScholarM (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Arain

Given the trouble you got into at the Arain article recently, why did you encourage someone else to add back the same unreliably sourced crap yesterday? You are teetering on the edge of a block or topic ban. - Sitush (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Topic ban warning

ScholarM, you ask over and over about the reliability of The Arains: A Historical Perspective, including in a thread where you had already been told self-published sources are not reliable.[1] Now that you have been repeatedly referred to WP:SPS, did you look it up and are we done? Please also take a look at the article CreateSpace while you're about it. Being unwilling or unable to understand answers makes communicating with you very exhausting for other users (who, when their patience starts to run out, are then called "aggressive" by you). If you don't try harder to take on what you're told, and to learn Wikipedia's rules, you are likely to be topic banned as a net negative to the area of castes and social groups. Bishonen | tålk 10:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC).

[Copying your response from my page, to keep this conversation together:]

Dear, I always avoid violating wiki rules and tries to help improve many articles on Wikipedia with RS. I was really not aware about create space, I found it is actually self Published source. It was my lack of information about this particular source to which i admit mistake but do you think this language is allowed. I added many points into this Arain page with RS and these points are still there. It was due to my efforts that organisation/Culture/Diaspora heading were added recently otherwise other editors were discouraged and were not allowed to add any point there. I think pages are not controlled by some people. It looks like that inciting me through this type of language, people want me to come into troubled water. Regards. ScholarM (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't buy it that you lacked information about The Arains: A Historical Perspective merely because you didn't know CreateSpace was a vanity publisher. It's not to be expected that you should know all the vanity publishers — I didn't know about CreateSpace either. But I followed the link for The Arains: A Historical Perspective that you yourself provided on Sitush's page and in other places. It goes to Google books. You see page 2 there? You should have looked at it. I don't see any excuse for not looking at it, especially once you had been told not to use self-published books. And if you have the competence to edit Wikipedia at all, that page should have told you that the book was self-published. Instead you went on nagging Sitush about it, referring to it several times as "this RS".[2] I remain unimpressed, and I will topic ban you if anything similar happens again. As for Sitush's language that you complain about, in a perfect world, Sitush would have infinite patience. But I can totally understand his frustration. Bishonen | tålk 12:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC).

Thanks Bishonen but no thanks. I did not discover its unreliability that's all. Mistakes may happen and it may happen with you also. You are an admin and are expected to be fair when dealing with editors. I am here for more than five years and never experienced such bad mouth and filthy language from any one. Also I did not that expect admins can support such language. Let some pages be controlled by some bigots. It has happened on wikipedia in past and may be allowed to continue. I will not edit that page at least for now. ScholarM (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a good idea ScholarM (not editing Arain or Talk:Arain). The way you're editing right now, you will get a topic ban.--regentspark (comment) 13:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

You did not discover its unreliability, and were not interested when you were told about it. That's not a "mistake", it's disruptive editing and wasting the time of constructive editors. Incidentally, since you emphasise that you have been here for five years, do you not know about indenting yet? Please try to indent properly on talkpages, using colons. It makes discussions easier to follow. Bishonen | tålk 16:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC).

I hope Bishonen you also know condescension. Please try to be more civil at talk pages and assume good faith because no editor has ownership of Articles. ScholarM (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

ScholarM, picking fights with admins is not a good idea.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Toddy1. I respect your editing. I will be calm now. ScholarM (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Syed Jamaat Ali Shah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alipur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Bots such as reFill

Have you noticed how bad bots such as reFill are at covering bare URLs?[3] I specially loved the work whose title was given as An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes , you are correct. I was also amazed to see it? Many times reFill doe not work properly. ScholarM (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Removing unreferenced or poorly referenced information

Dear friend. السلام عليكم و رحمة الله تعالى وبركاته. I hope you are fine. Removing unreferenced statements is my right and responsibility as an editor and you are mistaken, sorry to say dear friend, to believe I have to try to find reliable sources first. That’s not my responsibility. According to WP:BURDEN: “The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports.” You know as well as I do that these Muslim scholar biography pages are full of unreferenced information or information drawn only from weak sites like Islamic society websites. They won’t do. By the way, on many pages I leave unreferenced information, adding cn needed tags, if the statements seem neutral in tone and encyclopaedic. Please don’t take anything personally, even if I ever revert an edit you make. You know I respect your work on Wikipedia. Thank you. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 09:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Walekumassalam, dear friend. Thank you for your suggestions. I learn a lot from you. It is good that if something is poorly sourced or weak sourced, it must be deleted. It will surely help develop good articles on Wikipedia. I will try to find RS for each line which i write. I saw many times you are adding citation tag that is really helpful. Looking forward for more co-operation in editing. Regards. ScholarM (talk) 09:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Muhammad Abdul Aleem Siddiqi

Dear friend, I wish to advise you that I will remove this page from my watch list and will not edit it again while you’re an active editor on it. Your understanding of neutral tone, accuracy and the reliability of sources is very different to mine, and I want to avoid any possibility of edit-warring with you. Peace. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear, that is not encouraging. I tried to avoid any edit warring with you and accepted all your removals except where i could positively find some RS to expand that article. Looking forward for your kind co-operation in future. ScholarM (talk) 11:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Laal Kothi Paak Darbaar Sharif

This will be a new article on Tasawwuf you are invited to edit ,will it be possible to add citations from Bangladeshi newspaper please reply I will be waiting.Majun e Baqi (talk) 08:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You have been indefinitely topic banned from editing any pages or discussions related to Islam together with either Pakistan or India.

You have been sanctioned for persistent promotional editing and use of unreliable sources despite warnings. See my note below for examples and specifics.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. Bishonen | tålk 17:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Further comment and explanation: I notice User:GorgeCustersSabre has given up after trying to reign in your promotional editing and use of unreliabe sources at Muhammad Abdul Aleem Siddiqi, and I can't blame him; your use of sources at that article is a horror show, especially for somebody who I recently warned about unreliable sources. Examples: Sunnirazvi.net is not a reliable source. Their page about Muhammad Abdul Aleem Siddiqi, which you used here is a pure hagiography of the article subject. We're supposed to use "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Sunnirazvi.net is nowhere close to that. Nor is this, used twice here. And Abdulmajeed Nunez, History of the Muslims in Belize, used here is self-published. The very name of the publishing house, AuthorHouse, makes it obvious to my mind; if you don't see that, you should look it up before you use the source. Instead, you actually called it "RS" in your edit summary. That does not magically make it reliable, it merely shows recklessness. Compare our discussion of CreateSpace above, and see our article AuthorHouse. The articles Sadruddin Khan Azurda Dehlawi and Ziaul Mustafa Razvi Qadri which you created recently also have quite a few unreliable sources. That is why I decided a ban from only Pakistan unfortunately wasn't broad enough. Please ask before you edit, if you're at all uncertain of whether a page is covered by your topic ban. As an example, biographies of Indian or Pakistani Islamic scholars, such as for instance those mentioned above — Muhammad Abdul Aleem Siddiqi, Sadruddin Khan Azurda Dehlawi and Ziaul Mustafa Razvi Qadri — are very much covered by the ban. Bishonen | tålk 17:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC).

Bishonen you are not uninvolved editor. You are party to arguments. ScholarM (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. I have advised you in my capacity as administrator. You may want to read WP:INVOLVED. Bishonen | tålk 19:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC).

Hello Bishonen. I did not deserve this indefinite topic ban at-least. I was pushed to wall by first Sitush and later by you Bishonen. I had argued with you and you ban me just after a comment from George. After editing without any dispute for 5 years positively, i deserve at least a last chance. If reliable source is an issue then please understand that for the past Muslim scholars who are notable enough, it is very difficult to find English sources from Google Books/JSTOR/News/Newspaper etc. I am viewed as one who insert some unreliable sources but these are actually websites of Muslim community or religious organisations and I hope all Muslim religious websites/ Islamic Journals/Magazines are not viewed by English editors as unreliable sources. If all Muslim religious websites are unreliable websites then I will be sorry. Hope you will consider it and relax it at-least. ScholarM (talk) 11:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

ScholarM, if you use the Editor Interaction Analyser to compare interactions between yourself and Bishonen, you will find that it produces a very different pattern of results to that when you compare interactions between yourself and a genuinely involved editor such as GorgeCustersSabre.[4] I have put the results in a sortable table below.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Page	Minimum time between edits (minutes)	ScholarM	GorgeCustersSabre	Bishonen	Page type
Muhammad Abdul Aleem Siddiqi	0.033	22	52	0	Article
Arshadul Qadri	0.15	14	27	0	Article
Muhammad Waqaruddin Qadri	0.617	9	44	0	Article
Muhammad Ibrahim Siddiqui	0.65	12	32	0	Article
User talk:ScholarM	2	12	8	5	User talk
Ilyas Qadri	2	6	36	0	Article
Tarika-e-Maizbhandari	2	2	34	0	Article
User talk:GorgeCustersSabre	3	13	56	0	User talk
Muzaffar Shah Qadri	3	1	11	0	Article
Sardar Ahmad Chishti	9	26	52	0	Article
Talk:Jamaat Ali Shah	10	5	3	0	Article talk
User talk:Sitush	15	1	0	13	User talk
Muhammad Ibn Alawi al-Maliki	20	2	6	0	Article
Abdul Razzaq Gilani	29	0	4	2	Article
Shamsul-hasan Shams Barelvi	39	1	3	0	Article
User talk:Bishonen	45	1	0	64	User talk
Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi	60	5	14	0	Article
Jamaat Ali Shah	120	16	66	0	Article
Al Jamiatul Ashrafia	120	2	2	0	Article
Mustafa Raza Khan Qadri	240	5	6	0	Article
Nouman Ali Khan	300	0	2	2	Article
Muhammad Fazal Karim	360	1	3	0	Article
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents	420	2	1	23	ANI
Hamid Raza Khan	420	1	16	0	Article
Hafiz Muhammad Ahmad	720	2	22	0	Article
Shah Turab-ul-Haq	1440	5	31	0	Article
Akhtar Raza Khan	2880	4	25	0	Article
All India Sunni Conference	2880	3	4	0	Article
User talk:Janejo59	5760	1	0	3	User talk
Dawat-e-Islami	14400	6	30	0	Article
Naeem-ud-Deen Muradabadi	15840	4	13	0	Article
Dar-ul-Madinah	15840	1	11	0	Article
Muhammad Fazlur Rahman Ansari	17280	2	2	0	Article
Amjad Ali Aazmi	18720	1	18	0	Article
Jamiatur Raza	21600	4	1	0	Article
Syed Faiz-ul Hassan Shah	24480	1	1	0	Article
Grand Mufti of India	27360	1	15	0	Article

• Dear ScholarM , might I please respectfully add an observation to those already shared by Toddy1 and Bishonen. I read you comments above with great interest. I’m a committed Muslim like you, but I don’t see that as particularly relevant to my editing and I never assume (as you appear to) that non-Muslim editors would hold Islam-related Wikipedia articles and evidence to a different standard. In addition, I try very hard to prevent my own religion or worldview from influencing the way I evaluate the reliability of sources. If I see statements in a Wikipedia article about an Islamic person or institution that are based on Islamic websites, I don’t automatically assume that the sources are strong or reliable and therefore acceptable. Conversely, I don’t assume they are weak or unreliable and therefore unacceptable. Instead, I take time to enter the website to see if, within that site, the author is in a position to know the facts he or she asserts, has written with critical detachment, has based his or her arguments on evidence, and has provided citations. In such a case, I would probably accept the website as a reasonable source. On the other hand, if I read claims about a sheikh, scholar, saint, or institution that seem hagiographic, attribute to them miracles or even highly exemplary qualities, and provide no evidence, I would see that website as unreliable. It shouldn’t be used to support any claims on Wikipedia, even claims of a mundane and ordinary type such as where someone was born, what madrassa they attended and what specialisations they developed. My friend, I’m not claiming to be a superior editor. I try in good faith to be careful and get things right. I’m sure that sometimes I fail. But I do encourage you to reflect on my approach to the neutral tone we should try to create and the sources we use when we add information. I hope this advice helps. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• ScholarM, you ask for a last chance, but it seems to me you have been given several chances and plenty of assumption of good faith — then advice — then warnings — and your practice with regard to sourcing hasn't improved at all. You say it's difficult to find reliable sources from for instance Google Books. Yes, certainly it is, and that's not the best place to look. You need to actually read modern academic books/articles and base your editing on their findings. That's kind of the opposite of first deciding what you want to write and then looking for something in Google Books than can be used to support it. Please do your research in the right order, and in depth, not just superficially. And yes, religious websites are unlikely to be reliable sources. Not just Muslim religious websites, just as much Christian websites etc. A site like Answersingenesis.org would never be allowed to be used as a source for anything. I have told you already that we're supposed to use "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. How likely is for instance a Muslim religious website to be independent with regard to a figure like Muhammad Abdul Aleem Siddiqi? The website you used, Sunnirazvi.net, is simply full of adoring, praiseful bios of Islamic scholars. That won't give them "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I feel like I keep telling you these things and they never seem to register. User:GorgeCustersSabre, thank you very much for explaining so fully above, and I hope ScholarM reads your post with full attention and tries to learn from it. ScholarM, as I explained in the topic ban notice, you can appeal the ban by following the instructions here. As advice from me: the way to make an appeal likely to succeed is to edit other subjects for at least a few months, in a helpful, encyclopedic way, and demonstrating that you can write based on reliable sources; and then appeal. Simply appealing with a complaint about my unfairness is unlikely to succeed, IMO. But it's up to you. Bishonen | tålk 15:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC).

PS, I don't even understand why you would edit logged out at ANI.[5] What's the point? This account is not blocked, so far; please use it if you want to post to a noticeboard or anywhere else. Evading scrutiny is frowned on and makes you look bad. I notice that, as the IP, you even deny being ScholarM. Quite ridiculous. Obviously, if it's not you (I'd say there's a 0.01 % chance of that), it's a friend you have suborned into doing it. See WP:MEAT. Bishonen | tålk 17:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC).

Dear Toddy1 I was just talking about recent arguments with Bishonen. After his warning to me, I was on the verge of topic ban and comment after edit disagreement with GorgeCustersSabre made me vulnerable to face Indefinite ban. That discussion regarding quality of sources could have been done at talk page of that article but I was made to suffer due to these edits, which is not such an offence on Wikipedia. Comments like this should have been at talk page of this article. Here, I was adjudged finally, for topic ban due to edit disagreements. I did not do edit warring or anything like that and also did not insist to add whatever sources George removed. I added RS in to the article after his removal of sources and content. George, I asked you for direct help and your recent comments again are good advises but made me look not so good. Thank you dear. Now the above comments of admin Bishonen are really helpful and surely I will follow. Regards. ScholarM (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not me

Oh my God. This is not me. How you thought at all this is me ? I know I am not blocked so why at all i will do this thing in such a language which is not helpful. I did not tell anybody to post this complaint. This is not at all helpful also. This is really disappointing that you allege a thing which i did not commit. You gone too far User:Bishonen. ScholarM (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

In almost every instance I've encountered of this kind, it's the user or an acquaintance who was abusing ANI. Bishonen has not gone too far. Any other IPs found doing the same thing will be blocked, and probably checkusered. Appeal if you want to, but stop campaigning about Bishonen- you have been appropriately restricted according to normal proceses. Acroterion (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2409:4042:E9F:14B0:0:0:6D08:E613 is User:Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah. The reasons for thinking this are as follows:

1. It is a Pune IP address.[6] (compare with [7][8][9][10])
2. He/she edited User:Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah/Sandbox1
3. In the posts at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#regarding revoking the adnmin rights of User:Bishonen on wikipedia he/she several times forgot to make a space character after a punctuation mark.[11][12]

-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)==Peer Jamaat Ali Shah==

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Peer Jamaat Ali Shah, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.nfie.com/amiremillat.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 10:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

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.

Manipur

added a link pointing to Baghdadi

Nomination of Syed Muhammad Hashmi Ashraf for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Syed Muhammad Hashmi Ashraf 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/Syed Muhammad Hashmi Ashraf 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. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Maulana Abdul Hamid Qadri Badayuni

added a link pointing to Muslim League

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hijrat and Muslim League. 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) 10:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sufism in Bangladesh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Soharwardi. 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) 11:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 13 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Shuddhi page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Nurul Islam Farooqi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nurul Islam Farooqi 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/Nurul Islam Farooqi 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. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 06:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Arain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rampur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 14:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

This needs your attention

Assalamu Alykum, dear friend. Please have a look at Maulana Sardar Ahmad and let me know if you can do some copy editing there. Jzk - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 17:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Walekumassalam, i tried to do little bit. Please have a look and do what is necessary. Jzk.- ScholarM (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Arain

Given the trouble you got into at the Arain article recently, why did you encourage someone else to add back the same unreliably sourced crap yesterday? You are teetering on the edge of a block or topic ban. - Sitush (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Topic ban warning

ScholarM, you ask over and over about the reliability of The Arains: A Historical Perspective, including in a thread where you had already been told self-published sources are not reliable.[13] Now that you have been repeatedly referred to WP:SPS, did you look it up and are we done? Please also take a look at the article CreateSpace while you're about it. Being unwilling or unable to understand answers makes communicating with you very exhausting for other users (who, when their patience starts to run out, are then called "aggressive" by you). If you don't try harder to take on what you're told, and to learn Wikipedia's rules, you are likely to be topic banned as a net negative to the area of castes and social groups. Bishonen | tålk 10:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC).

[Copying your response from my page, to keep this conversation together:]

Dear, I always avoid violating wiki rules and tries to help improve many articles on Wikipedia with RS. I was really not aware about create space, I found it is actually self Published source. It was my lack of information about this particular source to which i admit mistake but do you think this language is allowed. I added many points into this Arain page with RS and these points are still there. It was due to my efforts that organisation/Culture/Diaspora heading were added recently otherwise other editors were discouraged and were not allowed to add any point there. I think pages are not controlled by some people. It looks like that inciting me through this type of language, people want me to come into troubled water. Regards. ScholarM (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't buy it that you lacked information about The Arains: A Historical Perspective merely because you didn't know CreateSpace was a vanity publisher. It's not to be expected that you should know all the vanity publishers — I didn't know about CreateSpace either. But I followed the link for The Arains: A Historical Perspective that you yourself provided on Sitush's page and in other places. It goes to Google books. You see page 2 there? You should have looked at it. I don't see any excuse for not looking at it, especially once you had been told not to use self-published books. And if you have the competence to edit Wikipedia at all, that page should have told you that the book was self-published. Instead you went on nagging Sitush about it, referring to it several times as "this RS".[14] I remain unimpressed, and I will topic ban you if anything similar happens again. As for Sitush's language that you complain about, in a perfect world, Sitush would have infinite patience. But I can totally understand his frustration. Bishonen | tålk 12:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC).

Thanks Bishonen but no thanks. I did not discover its unreliability that's all. Mistakes may happen and it may happen with you also. You are an admin and are expected to be fair when dealing with editors. I am here for more than five years and never experienced such bad mouth and filthy language from any one. Also I did not that expect admins can support such language. Let some pages be controlled by some bigots. It has happened on wikipedia in past and may be allowed to continue. I will not edit that page at least for now. ScholarM (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a good idea ScholarM (not editing Arain or Talk:Arain). The way you're editing right now, you will get a topic ban.--regentspark (comment) 13:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

You did not discover its unreliability, and were not interested when you were told about it. That's not a "mistake", it's disruptive editing and wasting the time of constructive editors. Incidentally, since you emphasise that you have been here for five years, do you not know about indenting yet? Please try to indent properly on talkpages, using colons. It makes discussions easier to follow. Bishonen | tålk 16:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC).

I hope Bishonen you also know condescension. Please try to be more civil at talk pages and assume good faith because no editor has ownership of Articles. ScholarM (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

ScholarM, picking fights with admins is not a good idea.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Toddy1. I respect your editing. I will be calm now. ScholarM (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Syed Jamaat Ali Shah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alipur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Bots such as reFill

Have you noticed how bad bots such as reFill are at covering bare URLs?[15] I specially loved the work whose title was given as An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes , you are correct. I was also amazed to see it? Many times reFill doe not work properly. ScholarM (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Removing unreferenced or poorly referenced information

Dear friend. السلام عليكم و رحمة الله تعالى وبركاته. I hope you are fine. Removing unreferenced statements is my right and responsibility as an editor and you are mistaken, sorry to say dear friend, to believe I have to try to find reliable sources first. That’s not my responsibility. According to WP:BURDEN: “The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports.” You know as well as I do that these Muslim scholar biography pages are full of unreferenced information or information drawn only from weak sites like Islamic society websites. They won’t do. By the way, on many pages I leave unreferenced information, adding cn needed tags, if the statements seem neutral in tone and encyclopaedic. Please don’t take anything personally, even if I ever revert an edit you make. You know I respect your work on Wikipedia. Thank you. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 09:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Walekumassalam, dear friend. Thank you for your suggestions. I learn a lot from you. It is good that if something is poorly sourced or weak sourced, it must be deleted. It will surely help develop good articles on Wikipedia. I will try to find RS for each line which i write. I saw many times you are adding citation tag that is really helpful. Looking forward for more co-operation in editing. Regards. ScholarM (talk) 09:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Muhammad Abdul Aleem Siddiqi

Dear friend, I wish to advise you that I will remove this page from my watch list and will not edit it again while you’re an active editor on it. Your understanding of neutral tone, accuracy and the reliability of sources is very different to mine, and I want to avoid any possibility of edit-warring with you. Peace. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear, that is not encouraging. I tried to avoid any edit warring with you and accepted all your removals except where i could positively find some RS to expand that article. Looking forward for your kind co-operation in future. ScholarM (talk) 11:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Laal Kothi Paak Darbaar Sharif

This will be a new article on Tasawwuf you are invited to edit ,will it be possible to add citations from Bangladeshi newspaper please reply I will be waiting.Majun e Baqi (talk) 08:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You have been indefinitely topic banned from editing any pages or discussions related to Islam together with either Pakistan or India.

You have been sanctioned for persistent promotional editing and use of unreliable sources despite warnings. See my note below for examples and specifics.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. Bishonen | tålk 17:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Further comment and explanation: I notice User:GorgeCustersSabre has given up after trying to reign in your promotional editing and use of unreliabe sources at Muhammad Abdul Aleem Siddiqi, and I can't blame him; your use of sources at that article is a horror show, especially for somebody who I recently warned about unreliable sources. Examples: Sunnirazvi.net is not a reliable source. Their page about Muhammad Abdul Aleem Siddiqi, which you used here is a pure hagiography of the article subject. We're supposed to use "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Sunnirazvi.net is nowhere close to that. Nor is this, used twice here. And Abdulmajeed Nunez, History of the Muslims in Belize, used here is self-published. The very name of the publishing house, AuthorHouse, makes it obvious to my mind; if you don't see that, you should look it up before you use the source. Instead, you actually called it "RS" in your edit summary. That does not magically make it reliable, it merely shows recklessness. Compare our discussion of CreateSpace above, and see our article AuthorHouse. The articles Sadruddin Khan Azurda Dehlawi and Ziaul Mustafa Razvi Qadri which you created recently also have quite a few unreliable sources. That is why I decided a ban from only Pakistan unfortunately wasn't broad enough. Please ask before you edit, if you're at all uncertain of whether a page is covered by your topic ban. As an example, biographies of Indian or Pakistani Islamic scholars, such as for instance those mentioned above — Muhammad Abdul Aleem Siddiqi, Sadruddin Khan Azurda Dehlawi and Ziaul Mustafa Razvi Qadri — are very much covered by the ban. Bishonen | tålk 17:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC).

Bishonen you are not uninvolved editor. You are party to arguments. ScholarM (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. I have advised you in my capacity as administrator. You may want to read WP:INVOLVED. Bishonen | tålk 19:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC).

Hello Bishonen. I did not deserve this indefinite topic ban at-least. I was pushed to wall by first Sitush and later by you Bishonen. I had argued with you and you ban me just after a comment from George. After editing without any dispute for 5 years positively, i deserve at least a last chance. If reliable source is an issue then please understand that for the past Muslim scholars who are notable enough, it is very difficult to find English sources from Google Books/JSTOR/News/Newspaper etc. I am viewed as one who insert some unreliable sources but these are actually websites of Muslim community or religious organisations and I hope all Muslim religious websites/ Islamic Journals/Magazines are not viewed by English editors as unreliable sources. If all Muslim religious websites are unreliable websites then I will be sorry. Hope you will consider it and relax it at-least. ScholarM (talk) 11:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

ScholarM, if you use the Editor Interaction Analyser to compare interactions between yourself and Bishonen, you will find that it produces a very different pattern of results to that when you compare interactions between yourself and a genuinely involved editor such as GorgeCustersSabre.[16] I have put the results in a sortable table below.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Page	Minimum time between edits (minutes)	ScholarM	GorgeCustersSabre	Bishonen	Page type
Muhammad Abdul Aleem Siddiqi	0.033	22	52	0	Article
Arshadul Qadri	0.15	14	27	0	Article
Muhammad Waqaruddin Qadri	0.617	9	44	0	Article
Muhammad Ibrahim Siddiqui	0.65	12	32	0	Article
User talk:ScholarM	2	12	8	5	User talk
Ilyas Qadri	2	6	36	0	Article
Tarika-e-Maizbhandari	2	2	34	0	Article
User talk:GorgeCustersSabre	3	13	56	0	User talk
Muzaffar Shah Qadri	3	1	11	0	Article
Sardar Ahmad Chishti	9	26	52	0	Article
Talk:Jamaat Ali Shah	10	5	3	0	Article talk
User talk:Sitush	15	1	0	13	User talk
Muhammad Ibn Alawi al-Maliki	20	2	6	0	Article
Abdul Razzaq Gilani	29	0	4	2	Article
Shamsul-hasan Shams Barelvi	39	1	3	0	Article
User talk:Bishonen	45	1	0	64	User talk
Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi	60	5	14	0	Article
Jamaat Ali Shah	120	16	66	0	Article
Al Jamiatul Ashrafia	120	2	2	0	Article
Mustafa Raza Khan Qadri	240	5	6	0	Article
Nouman Ali Khan	300	0	2	2	Article
Muhammad Fazal Karim	360	1	3	0	Article
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents	420	2	1	23	ANI
Hamid Raza Khan	420	1	16	0	Article
Hafiz Muhammad Ahmad	720	2	22	0	Article
Shah Turab-ul-Haq	1440	5	31	0	Article
Akhtar Raza Khan	2880	4	25	0	Article
All India Sunni Conference	2880	3	4	0	Article
User talk:Janejo59	5760	1	0	3	User talk
Dawat-e-Islami	14400	6	30	0	Article
Naeem-ud-Deen Muradabadi	15840	4	13	0	Article
Dar-ul-Madinah	15840	1	11	0	Article
Muhammad Fazlur Rahman Ansari	17280	2	2	0	Article
Amjad Ali Aazmi	18720	1	18	0	Article
Jamiatur Raza	21600	4	1	0	Article
Syed Faiz-ul Hassan Shah	24480	1	1	0	Article
Grand Mufti of India	27360	1	15	0	Article

• Dear ScholarM , might I please respectfully add an observation to those already shared by Toddy1 and Bishonen. I read you comments above with great interest. I’m a committed Muslim like you, but I don’t see that as particularly relevant to my editing and I never assume (as you appear to) that non-Muslim editors would hold Islam-related Wikipedia articles and evidence to a different standard. In addition, I try very hard to prevent my own religion or worldview from influencing the way I evaluate the reliability of sources. If I see statements in a Wikipedia article about an Islamic person or institution that are based on Islamic websites, I don’t automatically assume that the sources are strong or reliable and therefore acceptable. Conversely, I don’t assume they are weak or unreliable and therefore unacceptable. Instead, I take time to enter the website to see if, within that site, the author is in a position to know the facts he or she asserts, has written with critical detachment, has based his or her arguments on evidence, and has provided citations. In such a case, I would probably accept the website as a reasonable source. On the other hand, if I read claims about a sheikh, scholar, saint, or institution that seem hagiographic, attribute to them miracles or even highly exemplary qualities, and provide no evidence, I would see that website as unreliable. It shouldn’t be used to support any claims on Wikipedia, even claims of a mundane and ordinary type such as where someone was born, what madrassa they attended and what specialisations they developed. My friend, I’m not claiming to be a superior editor. I try in good faith to be careful and get things right. I’m sure that sometimes I fail. But I do encourage you to reflect on my approach to the neutral tone we should try to create and the sources we use when we add information. I hope this advice helps. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• ScholarM, you ask for a last chance, but it seems to me you have been given several chances and plenty of assumption of good faith — then advice — then warnings — and your practice with regard to sourcing hasn't improved at all. You say it's difficult to find reliable sources from for instance Google Books. Yes, certainly it is, and that's not the best place to look. You need to actually read modern academic books/articles and base your editing on their findings. That's kind of the opposite of first deciding what you want to write and then looking for something in Google Books than can be used to support it. Please do your research in the right order, and in depth, not just superficially. And yes, religious websites are unlikely to be reliable sources. Not just Muslim religious websites, just as much Christian websites etc. A site like Answersingenesis.org would never be allowed to be used as a source for anything. I have told you already that we're supposed to use "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. How likely is for instance a Muslim religious website to be independent with regard to a figure like Muhammad Abdul Aleem Siddiqi? The website you used, Sunnirazvi.net, is simply full of adoring, praiseful bios of Islamic scholars. That won't give them "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I feel like I keep telling you these things and they never seem to register. User:GorgeCustersSabre, thank you very much for explaining so fully above, and I hope ScholarM reads your post with full attention and tries to learn from it. ScholarM, as I explained in the topic ban notice, you can appeal the ban by following the instructions here. As advice from me: the way to make an appeal likely to succeed is to edit other subjects for at least a few months, in a helpful, encyclopedic way, and demonstrating that you can write based on reliable sources; and then appeal. Simply appealing with a complaint about my unfairness is unlikely to succeed, IMO. But it's up to you. Bishonen | tålk 15:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC).

PS, I don't even understand why you would edit logged out at ANI.[17] What's the point? This account is not blocked, so far; please use it if you want to post to a noticeboard or anywhere else. Evading scrutiny is frowned on and makes you look bad. I notice that, as the IP, you even deny being ScholarM. Quite ridiculous. Obviously, if it's not you (I'd say there's a 0.01 % chance of that), it's a friend you have suborned into doing it. See WP:MEAT. Bishonen | tålk 17:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC).

Dear Toddy1 I was just talking about recent arguments with Bishonen. After his warning to me, I was on the verge of topic ban and comment after edit disagreement with GorgeCustersSabre made me vulnerable to face Indefinite ban. That discussion regarding quality of sources could have been done at talk page of that article but I was made to suffer due to these edits, which is not such an offence on Wikipedia. Comments like this should have been at talk page of this article. Here, I was adjudged finally, for topic ban due to edit disagreements. I did not do edit warring or anything like that and also did not insist to add whatever sources George removed. I added RS in to the article after his removal of sources and content. George, I asked you for direct help and your recent comments again are good advises but made me look not so good. Thank you dear. Now the above comments of admin Bishonen are really helpful and surely I will follow. Regards. ScholarM (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not me

Oh my God. This is not me. How you thought at all this is me ? I know I am not blocked so why at all i will do this thing in such a language which is not helpful. I did not tell anybody to post this complaint. This is not at all helpful also. This is really disappointing that you allege a thing which i did not commit. You gone too far User:Bishonen. ScholarM (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

In almost every instance I've encountered of this kind, it's the user or an acquaintance who was abusing ANI. Bishonen has not gone too far. Any other IPs found doing the same thing will be blocked, and probably checkusered. Appeal if you want to, but stop campaigning about Bishonen- you have been appropriately restricted according to normal proceses. Acroterion (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2409:4042:E9F:14B0:0:0:6D08:E613 is User:Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah. The reasons for thinking this are as follows:

1. It is a Pune IP address.[18] (compare with [19][20][21][22])
2. He/she edited User:Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah/Sandbox1
3. In the posts at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#regarding revoking the adnmin rights of User:Bishonen on wikipedia he/she several times forgot to make a space character after a punctuation mark.[23][24]

-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)