User talk:Smatrah

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Smatrah. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Usury into Interest. 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. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. 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) 22:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources

Are generally required. Also please do not duplicate text already within an article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Be patient my Dear, now I have also added secondary source. Thanks for giving this information, you could have told me rather than undoing, i was also searching for secondary source, now I have found and added. Thank you. Smatrah (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Milk kinship is already discussed.Talk:Breastfeeding#Milk_kinship The Quran is not a secondary source but a primary one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear I’ve added tafsir ibn Kathir. And it’s secondary source. So Primary source in the presence of secondary source is permitted you can see whole of Wikipedia. Thank you. Smatrah (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed moves

Hey there. Unless a move is likely to be uncontroversial, it's best to follow the process shown in Wikipedia:Requested moves. Thank you. – Þjarkur (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

Hello, I'm Harshil169. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Nikah Halala have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. As it is seen from the page, you have added too much tags on the page, this is one of the type of vandalism. See policy WP:VANDTYPES. There is no need to add tag after each line if you have already added the tag in the lead section. Also, when you declare some source as unreliable source then it is necessary to give explanation that why source is unreliable which you didn’t do here. Don’t do Tag bombing and Distrupting Wikipedia. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 05:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Messages to Banovicmiki14

Please do not accuse good-faith users of vandalism —please see what vandalism is not— that counts as a personal attack, which are prohibited. Thank you. El_C 03:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have studied so kindly explain which portion of guideline are say that removing a relevant verse on article Jihad is not vandalism. They are unconstructive reverts while adding an irrelevant Hadith is allowed.

What has happened to you that you do not fight in the way of God for the oppressed men, women and children who say, "Our Lord, take us out from this town whose people are cruel, and make for us a supporter from Your own, and make for us a helper from Your own". (Quran 4:75)

Smatrah (talk) 07:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to prove a negative. If you take issue with someone's edits, seek clarifications on the article talk page, and do so without casting aspersions. El_C 07:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are you expecting from me to prove negative. I removed hadith and you or your puppet account re added it rather he must use talk page and should not put that burden of proof over me. Furthermore instead of taking issue on the talk page of Jihad and instead of replying on the talk page of that editor you are blaming me. Assume good faith and if it was mistake feel free to tell. Smatrah (talk) 11:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[Y]ou or your puppet account — this is your final warning about personal attacks or aspersions. If you do it again, you will be blocked from editing. El_C 17:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Am really sorry if you think that it was personal attack or incursion. Please assume good faith and consider how Quran cannot be quoted while hadiths are quoted. Although Quran is verbatim word of God in Muslims view. While Hadith are observed carefully in accordance with Islam and Muslim jurists apply conditions for acting upon them. I hope being a senior editor you would reply me soundly and fairly and will not threaten me of blocking. Smatrah (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Using the term "puppet account" again, was a personal attack, again. You have therefore been blocked from editing. Please see the template below for details and refrain from repeating this behaviour in the future. . El_C 18:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for personal attacks. El_C 18:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.[reply]

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator's noticeboard

You nearly got blocked for opening that discussion. However, the administrators have been patient and reminded you of the importance of seeking WP:CONSENSUS at the article talk page. Please also see WP:ONUS: the editor who adds the material must be able to justify it. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 12:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear i am asking to explain guideline, what is numeral distinction between short and long. He says it's lengthy. So tell me that distinction all will be fine.

I am thankful that we have such wikipedians who are patient thank you. Furthermore i have given my arguement. There is only undoing and no counter arguement and is only undoing. So please explain me what should I do.

Smatrah (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I now noticed the block for sockpuppetry. This is unfortunate, but shows a lack of regards for the project's policies which I guess is no longer worth wasting time to explain again...

I will still point at standard offer in case you ever would like to eventually edit legitimately again. —Paleo Neonate – 18:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not askig this standard. I am asking standard or crirteria for long. In other word how many letters (may include spaces and punctuation marks) at least a quotation have to deem it long. Such as 1000 or 500. Whatever you deem reasonable. Smatrah (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smatrah. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not do sock puppetry, i want justice just show evidence. Thank you. Smatrah (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please tell me when did i do sockpuppetry. It is a mistake. Please unblock it so that i may add valueable contributions to this site. Thank youSmatrah (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a checkuser block, meaning that there is technical evidence to support it(evidence to which even administrators are not privy to, only checkusers). If you are not a sockpuppet, you will have to provide a plausible explanation as to why the technical evidence indicates that you are, if you are not- and explain the findings of the SPI as well. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 12:42, 6 March 2020 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

It is conspiracy of pepperbeast against me to block me. I am not sock puppet. Someone undid my edit and then reported. I am sure thats all is misrepresentation. Pepperbeast failed to give plausible explanation of his edits and consequently reported me and blocked me. If he was sincere he would have reported me after explaining reasons of his edits. I did not do sock puppetry. Open evidence to clear up. I am not pointing finger you can check that every thing about pepperbeast is fact.Smatrah (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There's no conspiracy here. You were suspected of violating WP:SOCK, the evidence was presented (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Smatrah/Archive), the investigation happened, and technical evidence confirmed the sockpuppetry. There's no doubt you once again violated WP:SOCK. Yamla (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2020 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

t is conspiracy of pepperbeast against me to block me. I am not sock puppet. Someone undid that edit which was undone without explanation and then reported. I am sure thats all is misrepresentation. Pepperbeast failed to give plausible explanation of his edits and consequently reported me and blocked me. If he was sincere he would have reported me after explaining reasons of his edits. I did not do sock puppetry. Open evidence to clear up. I am not pointing finger you can check that every thing about pepperbeast is fact. Ptesent technical ecvidence. Furthermore how can you call their copoeration as company and supposedly with mine as sock puppetry. Is not it a grave ciontradictinSmatrah (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed sock puppetry. Denying it is not going to work. You need to explain why these other editors would be on the same IP range, using the same exact device, and editing the same article as you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2020 (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.

You are not permitted to remove (or edit) a declined unblock request for your currently active block. Please do not do so again. --Yamla (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point which wikipedia guideline says so? Smatrah (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLANKING, see the bits that may not be removed. --Yamla (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]