User talk:ScholarM/Archive 3

Suggestion

As Salamu Alaykum janab.

I am not creating my own Wikipedia article I am creating article on Great grandson of Hassan Raza Khan. Please help me on it you have experience how to create an article please create an article on Nabira e A'ala Hazrat Wa Ustad e Zaman Muhammad Kaif Raza Khan Qadri Sahab. I am follower and mureed by Janab Muhammad Kaif Raza Khan Qadri Kaifraza786 (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

As Salamu Alaykum Brother,

My dear brother please help me on creating a new article about a person who don't have sources online but there is many books about him. I hope you'll help me.

Thank You. Kaifraza786 (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kaifraza786, please give here details of those books/magazines and author name, page numbers, publication, year and what is written in those pages about Jb. Kaif Raza khan. If you can provide these details then I can surely help. I can't help wirethout details. ScholarM (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brother User:ScholarM, but those books are offline. Kaifraza786 (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ScholarM, Masail e Darul Baqa Ma Tazkara e Owais Raza this book tells about Jb. Muhammad Kaif Raza Khan Qadri. Go to this link and read page no 36 of this book. https://archive.org/details/masail-e-darul-baqa-wa-tazkara-e-owais-raza-hindi Kaifraza786 (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC) Dear Kaifraza786, i saw the book , now becoming good in editing. You already added this book as reference. Just add few points from this book like his education his works. Moreover, you can also find some material about him from Ahle sunnah magazines also. I will continuously watch your edits and will help you. Other than this, you can write about more famous topics which will be easy for you. ScholarM (talk) 10:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now can I create an article on him? Kaifraza786 (talk) 10:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have already created an article over Owais Raza Khan, make it rich with more sources from news papers, magazine and books. Don't make article on Kaif Raza Khan until you have good and reliable sources. ScholarM (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help on this article Uvais Raza Khan please save it from deletion. Kaifraza786 (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barelvi

Hi ScholarM. Did you mean to revert my fixing of cite errors on the Barelvi article? You reverted someone changing some names at the same time, and only mention they edit in your edit summary.
I'm going to fix the cite errors again. If you did mean to revert my edit as well, can you find a different solution to the cite errors rather than reintroducing them to the article? 92.5.2.97 (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ahmed Yaar Khan (June 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ken Tony was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ahmed Yaar Khan and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Ahmed Yaar Khan, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 13:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ScholarM! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 13:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Hakeem Azhari moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Abdul Hakeem Azhari, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Jupitus Smart 16:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Jupitus Smart, i have improved the article by adding reliable sources to the article. Please move it to main space.Thanks. ScholarM (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody else has left a comment for you on the draft page. Look into it and act accordingly after which this might pass. Jupitus Smart 02:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Abdul Hakeem Azhari has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Abdul Hakeem Azhari. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Wellgate Jamia Mosque (June 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Still fails WP:NBUILDING - the references establish that the mosque exists but not that it is notable. The sources need to provide significant coverage about the building itself not mentions in passing or inclusion on lists.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Wellgate Jamia Mosque and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Wellgate Jamia Mosque, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dan arndt the mosques may not have wide coverage in news papers or websites due to their non political character. That does not mean they are non notable. ScholarM (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In order to establish notability you need to demonstrate that there is significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources. The sources/references currently provided don’t do that. Dan arndt (talk)|

Shujat Ali Qadri moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Shujat Ali Qadri, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Jupitus Smart 16:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Qadiriyya into Abdul Qadir Gilani. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AIV and RFPP reports

Hello, I saw your reports both at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and noticed your formatting was wrong for both reports. You can look at the top of the each noticeboard page and see how to correctly post a report for administrator attention. In the future, please follow the correct procedures for posting requests. Thank you. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing me. ScholarM (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about canvassing

ScholarM, I have some concerns that your recent actions may be an issue of wikipedia:Canvassing. I understand that you disagree with some of my edits, and you know that I disagree on yours. With that being said, the best route forward - if we don’t agree with each other - is to involve the community at large. Per WP:APPNOTE, there are several ways to gain more community comments on certain articles or issues. Rather than sending unsolicited talk page messages to both users and admins who never requested notification, and without even informing me, you could alert relevant wikipedia:WikiProject pages or another place for Wikipedia:Centralized discussion. Opening complaints against my editing without informing me is insufficient notice and not congruent with a civil editing environment. Please think over the way you’ve approached this and consider ways in which we can work toward solutions with the community. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mezzo, are you stalking me ? You removed the content with valid sources from number of articles, did you start discussion anywhere? You only came to talk pages after you were forced to do so by other editors. Even before that, i initiated discussion at Ahle Sunnat Movement page where you replied several days later. I want to engage knowledgeable editors so a biased editing may be stopped. More over, you have been reverted by other editors and you are in edit war. Please learn to follow Wikipedia editing in good faith see WP:DGF. You can do this by articulating your honest motives and by making edits that show your willingness to compromise, interest in improving Wikipedia, adherence to policies and guidelines, belief in the veracity of your edits, avoidance of gaming the system, and other good-faith behavior. ScholarM (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

.

I’m not sure if you’re actually reading my comments, but I’ll try again so long as I’m welcome to comment on your talk page.

I’m inviting you to explore options for resolving our content dispute. Please check the wikipedia:WikiProject page, as well as the wp:APPNOTE section, for more ideas on how further community input can be acquired for that purpose. Please also focus on content and editing rather than editors; WP:WIAPA is helpful in this case. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ahmed Yaar Khan (July 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tol was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ahmed Yaar Khan and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Ahmed Yaar Khan, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Tol | talk | contribs 19:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Talk:Barelvi, you may be blocked from editing. Bishonen | tålk 10:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note on my page. But I've read your re-added comment, and I don't think much of it. You're supposed to assume good faith and not insult people, as you do when you say "Your overzealous deletion is an overwhelming desire to get materials on Wikipedia deleted. In other words, it is the act of getting an article deleted in order to feel like a "winner", to feel a sense of superiority, or "just for the heck of it"." Don't talk to people like that. This is a warning, ScholarM. Bishonen | tålk 10:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for comments. I was explaining other editor the site policy at WP:OZD. I will take care of it. ScholarM (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ScholarM, you thought that was site policy? Wikipedia:Overzealous deletion is an essay, and a rather dubious one. It has no authority. Anybody can write an essay. I have just deleted from that essay the text that you threw in your opponent's face, while apparently thinking you were entitled to do so because an essay talked like that. Have a read of Wikipedia:Don't cite essays or proposals as if they were policy (though I admit it's only an essay!). And always remember you are responsible for your own words, wherever you pick them up from. Bishonen | tålk 11:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, i thought i cited a policy. Thanks for correcting me. ScholarM (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment by biased Admins

User:RegentsPark, i saw today so many notifications that you blocked a number of Users by calling them my puppet. Are you seriously following any wiki policy here. How dare you allege those so many account were my socks? That is blatant false allegation, you have made. In fact you have misused your admin privileges. Any tom dick harry can come and can allege anything against anybody. You must apologize for such biased behavior towards me. What proof you have? Just suspect, like some biased police, you can punish anybody by calling him suspect based on your faulty understanding. ScholarM (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found the biased sock-puppet Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScholarM investigation which falsely alleged that i removed image of Akhtar Raza Khan where as i had not done this. The difference provided in the argument is related to my editing of Imam Ahmed Raza Khan Qadri, which is different article. The names are similar and ignorant User:Eostrix has brought my name in the investigation to defame me. The ignorant admin User:RegentsPark blocked so many accounts by calling my name. This is totally faulty system which has done injustice to me many times in the past also. I want these two accounts to be punished for their misuse of powers and false allegations against me. ScholarM (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:RoySmith and User:Mz7, did you read above point? Is any one answerable here? Can anybody take this to neutral admins? ScholarM (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since User:Logicalpointing was confirmed as your sock, I'm not sure what you're protesting about. Your best way forward is to read WP:SOCKBLOCK. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed your talk page archiving

Hi! I took the liberty of fixing the auto-archiving settings at the top of this page. --rchard2scout (talk) 10:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]