User talk:UsamahWard

Welcome

Greetings...

Hello, UsamahWard, and welcome to Wikipedia!

To get started, click on the green welcome.

I hope you like it here and decide to stay!

Epeefleche

Happy editing! Epeefleche (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:East London Mosque - elevated view (2012).jpg

Thanks for uploading File:East London Mosque - elevated view (2012).jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Gilligan allegations from Keith Vaz

I removed the 'forging references' statement from the article. Under WP:BLP any potentially controversial statements need to be relevant, be given due weight, and be well sourced. If Vaz had made a serious allegation in a formal way in a publication then it might be cited. As it is, the only source is a claimed transcript of an unprepared statement at a public meeting. To allow the statement to appear in a journalist's BLP article is WP:UNDUE since this criticism has not been considered significant by any other commentator. I have tehrefore removed it. If you wish to debate the inclusion please use the Talk page of the article. Martinlc (talk) 08:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted you as well - please discuss with other editors in the talk page (or at WP:BLP/N) before re-adding that. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't restore this material to the article. Thanks. --John (talk) 09:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The allegation is being discussed on the BLP noticeboard; it will only be reinstated if resolved there. In the meantime, regarding your first deletion today, two sources are available: Gilligan himself refers to his activity in the Cambridge University Labour Club (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9772250/Is-it-really-grim-up-north.html) and his candidacy on its behalf at the NUS is mentioned in a book (http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/people-from-teddington-books-llc/1022406327?ean=9781155821429). UsamahWard (talk) 09:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know, that is where I saw it. You may post these sources at article talk. They seem like better sources than the other one you were trying to add. Please let someone else add this material to the article though. --John (talk) 09:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - User:John: Why would someone else need to add it? If the sources related to Gilligan's uncontroversial activity at Cambridge are considered reliable, you or I or anyone else should be able to add it. This is entirely unrelated to the separate issue of the allegation. UsamahWard (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would prefer it if you propose your wording here first, so we can agree it. --John (talk) 09:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        User:John: I have put the suggestion on the entry's talk page; the original wording seems okay, with the addition of suitable citations.
Can I politely ask you not to add or restore any more negative material onto this article for the next while? From the outside, it might look as if you had an agenda here, an impression I am sure you would not wish to give. It's perfectly ok to continue to discuss in talk of course. --John (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- User:John: I should note for the record I haven't added any material. The item I restored today was discussed on the talk page, and supported by another editor (who hadn't supported my previous restoration); its all down to establishing the relative merits of each case in the light of Wikipedia guidelines. UsamahWard (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can I politely ask you a third time not to add or restore material unless there is consensus in article talk to do so? --John (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.4.74 (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abusing multiple accounts

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for using Manspacey as a sockpuppet account to bolster your discussion page arguments and help you edit-war at articles. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Atama頭 21:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Manspacey is categorically not me, I do not have a sockpuppet. As I pointed out to the new user who made the accusation (see discussion page for East London Mosque), why would I create a sockpuppet to change back what I've edited? The edit in dispute is so trivial as well, and the new editor(s) have made changes using no sources and ignoring template guidelines. It's all in the discussion. Update: I note the user who made the accusation of sockpuppetry actually claimed the day before on the discussion page that he and an admin were investigating because of the "same IP address". His edits and behaviour for a new user, along with the other new user who appeared there, can be judged from the article and discussion. :Further update: I've just been looking at the contributions by Manspacey, and realised that his single addition to the Gilligan article was the year before the 'edit war' that took place there, and the only connection is that the day after his addition I edited his entry for balance. He didn't make any contribution, supportive or otherwise, during the 'edit war' at the end of last year. As for his edits of the East London Mosque, whilst he has clearly also disagreed with Rinfoli/Fisingi/Ellodorando in the few edits he made - which means he concurs with me - he has not contributed anything to the entry's discussion page, which is where you might expect a sockpuppet to be used to bolster support. Instead, he's left a single comment on each of the pages of Fisingi and Ellodorando which, as I've suggested below, may well be sockpuppets of Rinfoli, who has then reacted to those comments. Moreover, in his latter comment, Manspacey has kind of missed my point, which was the claim about being the first and only mosque in Europe was patently untrue, and I gave the examples of Istanbul, Granada and Albania which are more than enough for any impartial observer that may want to check the actual discussion, not some other user's page. I hope this will be enough to convince you that Manspacey is genuinely not my sockpuppet, and that my discussion on the article's page has tried to keep within the letter and spirit of Wikipedia guidelines. UsamahWard (talk) 09:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

As I said below, I think that the duration of this block so far (a bit more than a week) is sufficient. I'm not retracting the sockpuppet accusation, I still think that evidence is too strong, but I believe that your conduct while blocked and your response to it has been very positive. -- Atama頭 16:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"why would I create a sockpuppet to change back what I've edited?" - "Good hand, bad hand" sockpuppetry is not uncommon. Rather, the opposite. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bushranger, I get your point - but that leaves me almost nowhere to go, and I am absolutely not Manspacey. I understand why Atama had to respond to the allegation, but ironically the 'Good hand, bad hand' you cited gives weight to my suspicion that the complainant, Rinfoli, may be the same person as the other two people he mentions, Fisingi and Ellodorando - in other words, he's covering his sockpuppeting by throwing out false accusations!

All three joined in recent days, edit articles related to the Bangladeshi community in the UK, and have a similar style of English expression. All three have made overlapping, sometimes bizarre and unsourced edits to the East London Mosque article.
Fisingi's second edit was to ask how to put formatting in his signature; within an hour it was not him but Rinfoli who made the signature change. In his question he cites the same user, 'Davey', and uses the same formatting as Ellodorando experimented with on his user page before removing it.
Ellodorando added "It is one of the only and first mosques in Europe which are allowed to broadcast the adhan", the same patently ridiculous claim that is made word for word on Rinfoli's user page.
Fisingi insisted the former chairman was in fact the president, which was Rinfoli's line in the discussion page, where he argued that chairman and president are the same.
Fisingi wrongly claimed (see his note on previous diff) that the list of imams had been in the article since it was created; on the talk page Rinfoli refers to this as his comment.
Both Fisingi and Rinfoli edited the article to say the East London Mosque has two domes. (This caused incredulity in my office, along with the hilarious claim that the new chairman is the son of the previous chairman!)
The day before Rinfoli officially posted his false accusation of sockpuppetry against me, he said this on the East London Mosque discussion page: "The Admin have found that the UsamahWard's IP adress is the same of the Manspacey. So it means UsamahWard is a sockpuppet, in fact after few days there will be a sockpuppet investigation about him." As his contribution record did not support this, I commented on it in the discussion.
Rinfoli apparently received several warnings in recent days by Freemesm (we are not connected), but Rinfoli has removed them from his page.

You can see from the discussion page that I tried to follow Wikipedia principles in this matter, and left the last edit unchanged, giving time to the new user(s) as per the guideline in dispute resolution. I don't know what else I can do to demonstrate that I have not been sockpuppeting and that I have carefully adhered to Wikipedia etiquette. I would be grateful if those involved could review this block, its really weighing heavily upon me. UsamahWard (talk) 10:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: 'Ellodorando' has just reinstated the bizarre claim that the East London Mosque is the first and only mosque in Europe to broadcast the call to prayer, and gone on to add the completely untrue claim that the Queen visited the mosque! UsamahWard (talk) 11:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further update: I have been looking through Rinfoli's contributions, for a new user he seems to be very adept at playing the system, having also requested protection for the page. He may have a fourth sockpuppet, 'Fikko', with similar edits, joined this month, Bengali-Italian sounding name, starting their user account with the same "hi I am ...". I note also he copied the warning by Freemesm he deleted from his own user page, then pasted it on Manspacey's user page - the same user he has claimed is my sockpuppet. UsamahWard (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm not taking suspicion too far, but looking further through articles that Rinfoli has edited, I wonder if he picked up his expertise for playing the system through having been blocked last month for sockpuppeting with user names Paradizez, Bigjumps, Aletec, Osvala, Highermafs and Aldota? I note also the coincidence that the Admin who first blocked Paradizez, DangerousPanda, is the same Admin that Fisingi asked about formatting when he created his new account. UsamahWard (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever said I that East London Mosque has 2 domes?? In regards to Freemesm,there are many users who copy this warning. Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#}, 11:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Yes, you are taking suspicion too far. I have seen the contributions of those sockpuppet users, and it could be that Ellodorando is the sixth. But why have you mentioned me? Boh, I don't understand you. Then there are many proves that you are sockpuppet. Why are you continuing to tell lies? Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#}, 11:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

I am tempted to say a lot, but suffice to point out you did change the number of domes to 2. Others can judge the merits of what I have said, and what you have done - including in the Italian version of the page, where even non-Italian speakers like me can identify glaring inaccuracies, some identical to the edits you have previously dissociated yourself from here. UsamahWard (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Usamahwars, I have already said this one did I wanted undid this revision because you deleted imams and chairmans name. In fact now there is written that it has only a dome. Few days ago I created an italian one, so where is the problem?? Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#}, 13:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

UsamahWard, I received your email, and of course I read the above that you wrote. You have not given me enough reason to believe that you and Manspacey are not the same editor. I still find it difficult to accept that Manspacey as an account independent of you has only edited pages that you also edited. That includes backing you up in an edit-war on the East London Mosque article between April 7-10 of this year. (Manspacey never edited that page until they swooped in to revert back to the change you'd just made to the page.) Please note that I haven't blocked you indefinitely, just for a month, because as far as I've seen you've only used one sockpuppet and it was in a fairly limited fashion.

I have no idea what Rinfoli was talking about in regards to knowing "IP addresses" for these accounts, or what administrator they were working with (it definitely wasn't me). I don't have an answer for that.

Having said all this, you have given me cause to wonder about the other side in this dispute. I have to look further but I may open a sockpuppet investigation for Rinfoli if I don't see enough behavioral evidence to make a conclusion on my own but do see enough to request that technical evidence be analyzed. I'll do you the courtesy to let you know what I decide in that. -- Atama頭 17:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atama thanks for responding. I've just looked at the edit you mentioned by Manspacey of 10 April: I was shocked to see it reverts an edit by 'Osvala' - one of the recently banned sockpuppets I noted above. Three days later Rinfoli and the 'others' start editing. Surely this cannot be a coincidence! When Rinfoli first made his sockpuppet accusation, he mentioned both Fisingi and Manspacey - before he made his formal accusation against me. Since I posted my claims above, Fisingi and Ellodorando posted and were reverted by Rinfoli, perhaps in an attempt to make it appear my suspicions are wrong. I think Rinfoli is using multiple accounts, just like those banned last month; could it be that Manspacey is one of his sockpuppets which he used to throw me on the rails, by reverting Osvali (himself) and posting not on his own talk page but on Fisingi and Ellorando (also himself)? Is it possible to check the IP address so see if any are in Italy? I can honestly assure you the sockpuppet, if it is one, is not mine. UsamahWard (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is extremely suspicious. Rinfoli was an account created just hours after the most recent Aldota sockpuppet case was concluded. That would mean that if Rinfoli and the other editors are indeed sockpuppets, they would have been missed by the most recent CheckUser check. I'll look closer at the behavior of these accounts but I think that the person reporting you was a sockpuppet.

I can assure you of one thing. If I request CheckUser, and it connects Manspacey to these other accounts (which is possible) but not to you, then that would be enough for me to clear you. But, I have very, very strong doubts that will be the case. You have a very good grasp of the English language, as does Manspacey. Rinfoli, Aldota, and Aldota's sockpuppets (both those confirmed and others I'm now suspecting) have a poor grasp of the language. Behaviorally-speaking, I still see more that connects Manspacey to you, and not the sockmaster. But I assure you, if a CheckUser is run on these accounts (and I think convincing someone to do it won't be difficult) they will find out. -- Atama頭 18:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atama, reluctantly I have to agree - on reflection, Manspacey probably isn't him. I was ready to add that he must have cut and paste the edits, just as he did with the warning he deleted from his page; but the Manspacey account is from 2012, so it doesn't fit. In desperation I'm now assuming bad faith at all turns! Still, Manspacey really isn't me, hopefully your IP check will clear me. UsamahWard (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atama, I've looked at Manspacey's edits even more closely. I appreciate your compliment about my grasp of English, so with no humility at all might I suggest that Manspacey's isn't quite as good? (No room for modesty when I'm trying to prove my innocence.) Looking at his late-night edits (I don't think I ever edit so late at night), I'd like to think that if this were my edit, I would have spelt 'keynote' as one word, and he's not formatted his link properly. Whilst I do make mistakes more often than I like, I try to correct them. I think the main similarity is his rejection of the silly edits by Rinfoli. I'm anxiously awaiting the IP address results. UsamahWard (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Atama: Anything from this? I'd rather not decline if you've found something that would lead you in a different direction the panda ₯’ 10:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I've been trying to whittle down the cases at SPI which have been backing up immensely. I've also been trying to gather all the evidence together in a cohesive and convincing manner to connect the three accounts accused of being sockpuppets. Part of the problem is that Fisingi and Rinfoli seem to be opposed to each other somewhat, and I suggested that it could be a good-hand, bad-hand situation (such as Bushranger mentioned about the Manspacey account) and decided to go with that at SPI. I've also been heavily distracted by a number of issues, and while trying to put all this together into the SPI I was simultaneously dealing with drama on my own talk page about another matter (which is still ongoing unfortunately). However, I did submit the SPI, seen here. I requested CheckUser, and asked to check for other sockpuppets. If Manspacey is technically connected it should get picked up in that check.

@DangerousPanda: As I said before to UsamahWard, behaviorally I still believe that Manspacey is a sockpuppet of this account. I haven't had a reason to doubt that yet. I've only come to believe that the accuser, Rinfoli, is also guilty of sockpuppetry, I'm certain that at least Ellodorado and Rinfoli are identical. But I don't think that the accuser's guilt absolves what looks like UsamahWard's guilt. I wouldn't be averse to decreasing the block duration for UsamahWard; in light of the shenanigans from his accuser, his very reasonable response to being blocked, and the general lack of other disruption I'm giving it very serious consideration. It has been more than a week, which I think is a long enough time. So after thinking long and hard, I'm going to unblock. Again, this isn't to say that I don't think Manspacey is a sockpuppet (and I'm leaving that account indefinitely blocked because of it) but I think this block has gone on long enough. I'll accept the unblock request above. -- Atama頭 16:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Atama: Thank you for returning to this and lifting the block. More than anything I want to clear my name, so please let me know if your CheckUser request comes through. UsamahWard (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to participate at the SPI, you can correct, add, or clarify anything I'd said before. You initially made the accusation here on your user talk page so I think it's appropriate. Just be sure to leave your comments in this section if you do so. -- Atama頭 17:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that extra info at the SPI. A clerk has endorsed running CheckUser, so we should get an evaluation soon. Let's see what happens. I'm this close (imagine someone holding forefinger and thumb barely apart) to just blocking Rinfoli and Ellodorado already because it is so obvious to me that there is sockpuppetry, but I'd rather see the scope first. I often don't block the "master" account who has sockpuppets for an indefinite period unless I feel that they have done enough disruption to warrant it, and it's possible that there is more going on here than I suspect, and it's also possible that Ellodorado is not the real master (there may be an even older account tied to these others). The CheckUser result may help reveal that. -- Atama頭 18:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Atama: Thanks for the update. Were you able to include my account and Manspacey's in the CheckUser request? It's hard to move forward with this matter still hanging over my head. UsamahWard (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't, but I really can't justify it without having something that would tie either you or the Manspacey account to the socks mentioned there. Behaviorally-speaking, I can't justify it, asking for CheckUser on accounts where there doesn't seem to be any real connection based on behavior can be considered "fishing" and that's discouraged (see WP:NOTFISHING). The CheckUser is going to find a connection to any of the named accounts already listed in the report, so if a connection exists between Manspacey and any of those other accounts they'll announce it. At the very least, though, if Rinfoli and/or any other sockpuppets have it out for you they'll be unable to do anything about it from now on. -- Atama頭 22:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Atama: I'm not too bothered about Rinfoli; thought such edits are irritating, they're easily dealt with when other editors look in to give views on a dispute. I understand why you can't justify a CheckUser request, but equally I'm disappointed, because there was a chance it might clear me. So I hope you'll understand if I try one last time to show Manspacey isn't my sockpuppet, based on his edits, which I've been pouring over again today. I'll repeat some of what I said originally, such as my own reaction when I mistakenly thought he had been involved in two edit wars on articles where I had been involved.

His only edit when he was created was in an article I had long been involved in editing, but it came out of nowhere when not much was happening. He added a paragraph, which relates to the East London Mosque; I watch that article, and added a reference the next day which I thought balanced the reference from the Telegraph. Of course, this could have been me creating a sockpuppet for future use, but...
... last year I allowed myself to get into an edit war on the same article, and I really, really could have used some support. That surely would have been the time to wield a sockpuppet, particularly as that account was established the year before on the same article.
Manspacey's first edit on the mosque article (11:22, 10 Apr) was to undo someone who reverted me. There's no reason why I couldn't have done this myself, however it could also be the typical action of a sockpuppet. (It now seems that the person he undid, Osvala, was blocked then came back as Rinfoli, but I accept this is almost certainly a coincidence.)
His next edit is right under my note on Fisingi's page, just 4 hours after I made it, and backing up what I've said. Yes, this could be what you'd expect from a sockpuppet; but anyone with local knowledge or access to Google StreetView could have pointed this out to Fisingi, I really didn't need help in countering such a silly claim.
His next three edits seem to have nothing to do with the discussion, he's just trying to add a single piece of new information, it just takes him three attempts!
His penultimate edit (15:18, 24 Apr), whilst undoing a silly edit by Rinfoli, reinstates incorrect information. At best, it's lazy; it's certainly not what I did when correcting that section, where I reinstated appropriate leadership information that had been properly formatted and sourced by another editor, such as here.
His final edit (15:38, 24 Apr), as I mentioned previously, though supportive, entirely misses my point. Regardless of whatever else happens in the UK, Ellodorando's claim was about it being the "first and only mosque in Europe" (my emphasis), and this is what I had pointed out, referencing Istanbul and Granada as obvious counter-examples.
As I argued before, if I were going to use a sockpuppet to add strength to the argument, the best place to do this would surely be in the discussion. There's no evidence Manspacey was even aware of the discussion on the article's talk page.

Finally, I recognise nothing constitutes proof one way or the other, and that admins have to act on what seems probable. I hope I've done enough to convince you or anyone else looking at this that on closer analysis there are too many inconsistencies with Rinfoli's accusation of sockpuppetry. UsamahWard (talk) 08:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to believe you. You've been really positive during all of this and I don't regret unblocking you early. I have nothing personal against you certainly. But I just can't shake my suspicions. You argue on the talk page of Andrew Gilligan talking (ironically?) about sockpuppetry, and saying that you were essentially going to withdraw and hoping that someone else would come along and add more to the page. The very next day Manspacey was created and then added some info a couple of days later. And as you said, you added a reference to that. Then the account was inactive until it helped you edit-war with Osvala. It's either the biggest coincidence I've ever seen in dealing with sockpuppet investigations or has some connection with you. Again, I really want to believe you, you come across as a pleasant person but I can't reconcile this. I don't recommend any further sanctions against you in any way, and I wish you luck on the articles you edit but even though you have some good points above I just can't in good conscience declare that there is no connection, I'm sorry. -- Atama頭 16:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Atama: I appreciate the time it must have taken you to look at this, so may I add one very important clarification: if you check the dates on the diffs, Manspacey was created and made his edit to Gilligan a whole year before my comment you mention above (his edit in Nov 2012, my comment about sockpuppetry in Nov 2013); in other words, my plea for someone else to come along was almost a year after Manspacey's edit in that article - and, as I noted previously, my plea fell on deaf ears. I agree that had they been just days apart, it would have been a big coincidence! Oh, and many thanks for the Barnstar below - it was as unexpected as it is welcome, and has done more to lift my spirits than I would have thought possible. UsamahWard (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bah, you're right. That does weaken things a lot. What a coincidence that they were a day apart (date-wise), but a year apart. Bah, fine, I'll go ahead and remove the sock tag and unblock that other account. That was what had really convinced me but you're right, with that timeframe it's not nearly as solid. Given the person who instigated this whole thing was a sockpuppet themselves, I'll just consider this collateral damage from their shenanigans. -- Atama頭 17:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Atama: Many, many thanks! I also didn't notice the year difference initially, as Rinfoli only mentioned 2012 in his accusation. At the end of the day, this all reinforces the Wikipedia guidelines for being patient - something I didn't get right last year when editing the Gilligan entry. I really appreciate your willingness to engage in this matter and read my comments despite my inability to be brief. Thank you. UsamahWard (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

		The Special Barnstar
		For keeping your cool while blocked and helping uncover a huge batch of sockpuppets from a long-time disruptive editor. I almost never give out barnstars but you deserve one. -- Atama頭 16:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asad Q. Ahmed

Dear UsamahWard, I hope you are well. Sorry to ask, but could you please have a look at the page Asad Q. Ahmed and its talk page. Ashwak786 seems to want to consider this very imperfect page to be perfect and edit-proof. Thanks so much. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GorgeCustersSabre: It seems the same person removed your note to me from this talk page! I can see an experienced editor, Cmr08, has restored the article, and also your note to me - thanks Cmr08! UsamahWard (talk) 07:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Hi there! I'd like a word with you privately. Have you got an email or Facebook account? -- $AHLM13$ talk 18:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can send an email to a registered Wikipedia user by clicking on the Email this user link in the tools menu on the left of the page. UsamahWard (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't received any response yet. --

AHLM13

talk 21:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard from Shaykh Qayum that you told him that people are still calling you as new Muslim, although you are converted since long. I undertstand that you feel bad in that case. You didn't reply my emails, please reply them. -- $AHLM13$ talk 13:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsider edit to Islamic Forum of Europe

Regarding your edit to Islamic Forum of Europe:

If the bracketed explanatory text were Wikipedia's, then it would be fine to improve it, but the bracketed text is in the source, so we should stick to that. (The two cited sources report the quote slightly differently, you can use whichever you think is better.)
Wikipedia's Manual of Style discourages wikilinking words or phrases within quotations. The quote already includes brief explanatory text for them, so it would be better to link dawah, hisbah, and jihad in an explanatory sentence before or after the block quote, or to include them in the "see also" section.

--Worldbruce (talk) 06:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce: You have raised an interesting point: without checking the source, I suspect a reader may not realise the explanation in brackets is itself from the source. Arguably, the explanatory brackets shouldn't be there at all, as the introduction to the quote is only citing the person who made the statement. (I am not convinced this quote even merits inclusion in this section of the article!)

On the matter of the wikilinking, although this is discouraged, in this case it seems to be the simplest solution for a reader unfamiliar with these non-English terms, rather than relying on the over-simplified and potentially pejorative explanations in brackets. However, I'm happy to defer to your judgement if you would prefer to edit it in the manner you indicated. UsamahWard (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, UsamahWard. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, UsamahWard. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]