Jump to content

User talk:Warofdreams/2015

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives

Next meetups in North England

[edit]

Hello. Would you be interested in attending one of the next wikimeets in the north of England? They will take place in:

If you can make them, please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page!

If you want to receive future notifications about these wikimeets, then please add your name to the notification list (or remove it if you're already on the list and you don't want to receive future notifications!)

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

== Stuart Campbell (journalist) == this article copied exactly from one source? I couldn't access to cited source. --George Ho (talk) 06:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does rely on one source, but it's not copied - it not at all in the style of the source. Warofdreams talk 19:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Workshopping bureaucrat activity requirements

[edit]
(Message to all bureaucrats)

There is an ongoing discussion about implementing some kind of standards for administrative and bureaucrat activity levels; and activity requirements for bureaucrats have been explored several times in the past. I've prepared a draft addition to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats that would require at least one bureaucratic action every five years to retain the bureaucrat permission.

In the past, I've been hesitant of such proposals but I believe that if the bureaucrat group as a whole is seen to be actively engaged, the community may be more willing to grant additional tasks to the position.

Please let me know your thoughts. I'm not sure if this actually applies to any of us, but if you have not acted as a bureaucrat in over five years, you might consider requesting removal of the permission or otherwise signalling that you intend to return to bureaucrat activity. –xenotalk 14:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: bureaucrat discussion opened

[edit]
Message to most bureaucrats

A bureaucrat chat has been opened by Maxim at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rich Farmbrough 2/Bureaucrat discussion.

Wikipedia:Bureaucrat discussion suggests notifying bureaucrats on their talk page as well as BN, hence this courtesy note. –xenotalk 16:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

[edit]

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services



Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrat discussion notification

[edit]
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678/Bureaucrat discussion

I would welcome input from other bureaucrats in relation to the outcome of this RfA.
Many thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) for WJBscribe (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interview for The Signpost

[edit]

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (warn) @ 15:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Community & Bureaucrat based desysoping proposal

[edit]

A discussion is taking place regarding a proposal to create a community and bureaucrat based desysoping committee. The proposal would modify the position of bureaucrat. Your input is encouraged. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrat discussion notification (Liz)

[edit]
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Liz/Bureaucrat discussion

I would welcome input from other bureaucrats in relation to the outcome of this RfA.
Many thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) for WJBscribe (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Current Cratchat

[edit]

The current Cratchat is a tricky one and we could do with more voices. I'm dropping a line to the Crats who appear to be active but have yet to chime in, to ask if they could possibly do so, asap, as we obviously don't want to keep the candidate hanging on. Could you possibly take a look? Many thanks --Dweller (talk) 08:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very grateful you were able to find the time to give your opinion. Thank you. --Dweller (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, thank you for informing me and chasing me up! Warofdreams talk 15:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well done

[edit]
The Bureaucrat's Barnstar
Time and time again, the bureaucrats of en-wiki demonstrate their levelheadedness and expertise. Like an anesthesiologist in an operating room, you spend most of your time screwing around reading a magazine, but stand ready to spring into action when needed, only to fade into the background once your important work is done.

Or perhaps that's more like Batman? Whatever your preferred metaphor, I am consistently impressed by the bureaucrat corps. Thank you for your service. HiDrNick! 12:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's most kind, thank you! Warofdreams talk 13:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Burma to Myanmar - new 2015 poll

[edit]

You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA Crat Chat

[edit]

Hello, Warofdreams,

I just wanted to thank you and all of the bureaucrats who participated in the bureaucrat chat after my RfA was closed. There were a lot of votes and comments to go through along with the enormous amount of content on the crat chat talk page. I appreciate the time and care the bureaucrats took to consider all of the arguments and come to a consensus.

I never imagined that my RfA would be at all contentious or have such a big turnout. Although I hope you don't have many close call RfAs in the future, I know if you do, that Wikipedia's bureaucrats will find their way to a decision. Thank you again for your work in bringing this RfA to a close. Liz Read! Talk! 18:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation of Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Bureaucrat activity requirements

[edit]

Following a community discussion ending August 2015, consensus was reached to remove the bureaucrat permissions of users who have not participated in bureaucrat activity for three years.


To assist with the implementation of this requirement, please see Wikipedia:Bureaucrat activity. Modeled after Wikipedia:Inactive administrators and similar to that process, the log page will be created on 1 September 2015. Bureaucrats who have not met the activity requirements as of that date will be notified by email (where possible) and on their talk page to advise of the pending removal.

If the notified user does not return to bureaucrat activity and the permissions are removed, they will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFB. Removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon the affected user in any way.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. –xenotalk

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James D. MacDougall

[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you have access to some old CPGB reference works. I am interested in tracking down the full names of old parliamentary candidates and hoped that you will to continue to fill in a few gaps beyond my own data. A long shot, but can you identify the D. in James D. MacDougall? He was a former Communist who stood as Liberal candidate for Rutherglen in 1929. Graemp (talk) 13:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help - it was Dunlop, and his surname seems to have been McDougall. Looks like an interesting character - I think there's enough that I might try to write an article on him. Warofdreams talk 13:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think he might struggle to meet the notability criteria. Graemp (talk) 13:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have James Dunlop McDougall BSP candidate at Tradeston in 1918 and J.D. MacDougall (an ex-Communist) Lib candidate at Rutherglen in 1929. Are you certain they are one and the same? Graemp (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - I've found lots of information, so I've decided to write an article after all, and Gilbert McAllister's James Maxton: The Portrait of a Rebel specifically states that this is one individual. Incidentally, it seems he used both McDougall and MacDougall, but the spelling with the "a" seems more common. Warofdreams talk 14:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have linked all existing mentions of him I can find on here as James Dunlop MacDougall. I will look forward to reading the article. Graemp (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for John Peck (politician)

[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 12:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating

[edit]

Logo of Women in Red Logo of the Smithsonian Institution
Thank you for your interest in Women in Red and for your participation in the virtual Women in Leadership Edit-a-thon, 7-20 September 2015. It was a resounding success with over 160 new articles. Your contributions are appreciated! We'll keep you posted on future events. --Ipigott (talk) 09:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Architecture

[edit]
You are invited! Join us remotely!

World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Architecture

  • Dates: 15 to 25 October 2015
  • Location: Worldwide/virtual/online event
  • Host/Facilitator: Women in Red (WiR): Did you know that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you!
  • Sponsor: Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in association with Beverly Willis Architecture Foundation, Women in Design, and Wikiproject Women Wikipedia Design
  • Event details: This is a virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WiR in parallel with a series of "physical" Guggenheim edit-a-thons. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in architecture and design to participate. The campaign aims to further the goals of Ada Lovelace Day for STEM, and Art+Feminism for art, in a field that by its nature combines both. As the virtual edit-a-thon stretches over a week and a half, inexperienced participants will be able to draw on the assistance of more experienced editors while creating, translating or improving articles on women who are (or have been) prominent in this field. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome.
  • RSVP and learn more: →here←--Ipigott (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal candidates

[edit]

I did some research of the births and deaths of Liberal candidates for the 1945-55 elections. The following will interest you;

That is fantastic, many thanks! Warofdreams talk 13:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

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) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Derby Dolls

[edit]

FYI, this is happening: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Diego Derby Dolls. An editor has created an account for the sole purpose of getting this article deleted (also tried to get league-founder Bonnie D.Stroir deleted but that attempt was shut down already). Since you created it, thought you should get a headsup. Echoedmyron (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the heads-up; I've just added a brief comment for now, but I'll see if I have any further sources to hand (possibly not as I created it, but I might have acquired something since). Warofdreams talk 16:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Appears that the nominating editor has said their piece, and all additional comments, including your own, are in support of keeping it; I fixed a couple of refs myself, including rescuing the DNN ref (at some point DNN changed their URL to derbynews.net, so all historical refs for them are in need of updating; I update them as I find them. I'll see if I can supplement the article more myself, but in the short term it seems we (may) have saved this one. Echoedmyron (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1939/1940 General election

[edit]

Hi War, you recently added the Christopher Thomas Douthwaite link to the Macclesfield entry for 1939. One of my things is collecting data of prospective candidates for this aborted election, as well as a 1915 General election. I was wondering if your source the Dictionary of Labour Biography contained this information. If your copy is electronic, it might be easy to check. I think that I have identified most of the Labour Party prospective candidates for 1939. I accept that this may not be a task that could be done systematically. Graemp (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book is actually in a library which I probably won't be visiting again until the new year, though I can check then. However, from memory, I don't believe the information was in the book - I just saw his name in the article and linked it as, given the party, name and location, it must be him. Warofdreams talk 18:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Without doubt it is him. Perhaps the most I can ask is for you to do what you did with Douthwaite, and amend/link 1915 and 1939/40 candidate data as and when you find it. Then it is down to my Watch List Management skills. Graemp (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As and when I find any more information, I'll try to give you a head-up. Warofdreams talk 16:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Harold Humphries

[edit]

Hi War, you recently made edits changing his name from Humphrey to Humphries as well as changing his party description. I was uncertain about these changes and have looked into them.

party label

[edit]

British parliamentary election results, 1918-1949 by FWS Craig lists him as Ind Lab for 1918 and Lab for 1922. When FWS Craig used Ind Lab it was usually to denote a candidate who was not endorsed by the NEC, even though he/she was endorsed by the CLP. I have some vague recollection of the NEC not wanting a Labour candidate to run against Herbert Craig, who they regarded as sympathetic. I usually trust FWS Craig on these types of party label. Debrett's House of Commons 1922 lists him for the 1918 elections as Lab, but I trust this source less.

family name

[edit]

FWS Craig lists G.H. Humphrey for both 1918 and 1922. I don't recall Craig making an error on the spelling of a candidate name. The Labour Who's Who of 1924 lists him as George Harold Humphrey. Debrett's House of Commons 1922 lists him as George Harold Humphries, but I trust this source less.

Based on my research, if I had to make a call I would say he was George Harold Humphrey and that he should be described as Independent Labour for 1918. Graemp (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the research! Craig has made a mistake on one occasion, as in the 1885-1918 volume, he lists him as Humphries. I wonder if he changed his name? The report of the Labour Party conference for 1919 lists him as Humphries, and the TUC's report on the 1918 elections does too, while in the 1924 Labour Who's Who, he is listed as Humphrey. All three just list his 1918 candidature as being for Labour, and though that doesn't rule out him being an ILP candidate with local but not national support, it would be surprising for the 1919 conference to then list him as a Labour Party candidate without further comment. However, Craig is generally a good source, so I've no complaint if you want to use him as a reference to list him as ind lab for 1918 and standardise the names as you wish. Warofdreams talk 17:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - found something useful; he wrote a letter to The Times on 22 November 1922, correcting some mistakes they had made, stressing the his name was "G. H. Humphrey", so that one looks settled! Warofdreams talk 17:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that his 1918 candidature came so late that there was no opportunity for him to be endorsed by HQ. As part of my enquiries, I had to eliminate the 1935 candidature of George Hubert Humphreys, which slowed me down. In my 1915 database I have an ILP candidate for Tynemouth listed as George Harold Humphries. Part of the problem is that many compilers at the time used election results in The Times as their source, which means that when The Times gets it wrong, others got it wrong. Craig was good for getting to the bottom of such discrepancies.

Where did he stand before 1918? Graemp (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that he stood anywhere before 1918. He was an ILP member; G. J. Barnby in Birmingham Working People describes how he was the first ILP candidate for the council approved by the local trades council. Warofdreams talk 14:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore how does Craig make a mistake in 1885-1918 volume by listing him as Humphries? Graemp (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent question - the volume comes up in a Google Books search for that name, but I can't see enough of the volume to see where (and confirm if) he is indeed listed. Warofdreams talk 18:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So we don't think he stood before 1918 and we therefore think that Craig didnt make a mistake in 1885-1910 volume. Graemp (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Google search suggests otherwise, but it's not conclusive evidence and I can't check without going through the whole volume by hand, so definitely best to leave it with the referenced information you have. Warofdreams talk 14:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

[edit]
Hello, Warofdreams. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I've already seen quite a few of those, but it looks like you're finding some further useful material in them for the article - it should be a good bet for DYK! Warofdreams talk 15:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion Ken Giami

[edit]

Articles for deletion Ken Giami

Hello Warofdreams I saw your profile on the list of wikipedians. It says you are interested in Africa related topics on wikipedia.

Please I need your help, I started an article on Ken Giami and it has been nominated for deletion on grounds of notability ... Ken Giami From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [2]

The notability criteria clearly states as I read, that People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6][3]

I have provided sources of reference that fulfill the above criteria for notability.

The guidelines also states that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[7][4]

I have also provided multiple independent sources and the page has been edited by other users with references added.

I would like to know the next step for getting the article off the deletion nomination list. There is a talk page on the article [5]

Please I need your guidance on moving to the next stage of getting the article listed

Thank you Bomabenjy2 (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

You don't need to add a wikilink of the article's title to the article. See [1], [2] and [3]. Bgwhite (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I was just copying the results over from the constituency articles, thinking a bot would take care of the circular link - but I can remove them in future if there's not currently a bot doing this as I don't want to create work for you! Warofdreams talk 11:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Alex Moffat (trade unionist)

[edit]

There are issues with some of your citations. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More issues. Please take a look at the nomination page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Solstice & Season's greetings

[edit]
Merry Christmas and happy New Year
And thanks for your WP:contributions! Best wishes to you and your family. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC) |}[reply]

Today's main page

[edit]

Speaking of miners, did you see current events and on this day on today's Wikipeda Main Page? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer! Glad to see the topic getting some more exposure! Warofdreams talk 19:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know about climate change and carbon dioxide and global warming. And I want something done.
But I also know there is a whole lot of displacement here and the effect on miners, their living and their families is tragic and largely ignored. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely agree - my personal view is that a move away from fossil fuels is essential, and coal mining is a miserable profession, but it's one which has paid well in recent decades in the UK and has been at the core of whole communities which have suffered greatly from its accelerated decline without sufficient alternative local industries. Warofdreams talk 19:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We've been undergoing that (in slow motion) for years. Particularly the deep pits are disappearing, they are doing a whole lot of open pit and mountain topping mining, the United Mineworkers of America has bled members as have the membership of the Bituminous Coal Operators Association, and what coal mining there is has moved west. And the closing of coal-fired generating plants is in full swing. My grandfather was a coal miner (he got out after being badly burned in a mine explosion); my father was an international representative for District 50 of the Mine Workers. And the economies of these small mining towns for Appallachia and through Illinois are fragile, with nothing to replace the lost opportunities. I feel for them. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons Greetings

[edit]
Seasons Greetings

Christmas! Christmas, everywhere,
on every talk page, I do dispair
Seasons being greeted and Wikibreaks told,
but still time for a little more editing, for being WP:BOLD!
So go on, go forth and enjoy beyond concern
Your Wiki will be waiting for when you return.

Have a great Christmas, and thanks for all the work you do as an admin and crat :) -- samtar whisper 21:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocrisy & oppression

[edit]

Peace be upon you and the mercy of God and His blessings.

Hey, if you have time, please check out the talk page of this article: Mujaddid 

The Ahmadiyyas are regarded as heretics by the orthodox Muslims because Mirza Ghulam Ahmad proclaimed himself a Mahdi and Messiah and also because they do not believe that Prophet Muhammad is the last Prophet. Based on divine revelations, he declared that he resembled Jesus in face and stature, and had been sent to 'break the cross', and show crucifixion to have been a fable. The majority of Muslims do not refer to the Ahmadis by this name, but use the derogative Qadianis (Qadian, in northwest India, is the birthplace of Ahmad) and Mirzai (referring to Mirza Ahmad). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahmadiyya&action=history

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, proclaimed himself the Madhi of Islam, the Christian Messiah, and the final avatar or incarnation of Vishnu. Based on divine revelations, he declared that he resembled Jesus in face and stature, and had been sent to 'break the cross', and show crucifixion to have been a fable.[4] Thus, the majority of Muslims do not refer to the Ahmadis by this name, but use the derogative Qadianis (Qadian, in northwest India, is the birthplace of Ahmad) and Mirzai (referring to Mirza Ahmad). By using these terms, the point is being made that Ahmadiyya is a new religion founded by a particular person at a particular time, unlike Islam which is universal: Muhammad is a Prophet, not a founder, and therefore it is considered derogative to refer to Islam as 'Muhammadism'. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qadiani&action=history

Note: Ghulam Ahmad proclaimed himself the Mujaddid of the 13th century, a claim which is accepted only by the Ahmadiyya, but rejected by all other Muslim communities, many of whom regard him as an apostate. Source: e-Study Guide for: Religion and Globalization by Cram101 Textbook Reviews. 

The founder of the Barelawis, was an extremist Sufi known for his Takfeer (declaring Kufr) and extremely heretical beliefs.

Ehsan Illahi Zaheer has written a detailed book on the Barelawis, which highlights…

  • The influences of Shi’ism on the founder of the Barelawi school of thought.
  • The easiness with which they declare Kufr on their opponents.
  • Their giving superstitions, baseless talk, unfounded stories and fables, the garb of religion.
  • Their distortion (Tahreef) and misinterpretation of the Book and the Sunnah to support their beliefs.
Source: http://www.ahya.org/tjonline/eng/01/02chp1.html
  • "He who doubts about the unbelief of the Deobandi's is also an unbeliever."
  • "If anyone has the same beliefs as the Deobandi's have, he is also an unbeliever."
  • "If anyone prays behind anyone of the Deobandi's, he is also not a Muslim."
  • "Any person who doubts the kufr of these people (Deobandis) will themselves become kaafirs!"
  • "Any person who would not call them (Deobandis) disbelievers or would maintain friendship with them, or would take into consideration their positions as teachers or relatives or friends will also definitely become one of them. He is a disbeliever like them. On the Day of Judgement, he will also be tied with them in the same rope. Whatever lame excuses and fraudulent arguments they give here are invalid and false."
  • "If anyone admires Darul Ulum Deoband, or does not believe in the corruption of the Deobandi's and does not scorn them, then this is sufficient to make a judgement for him to be a Non-Muslim!"
  • "If there is a gathering of Hindu's, Christian's, Qadiyani's and Deobandi's, the Deobandi's alone should be rejected, for they have come out of the fold of Islam and defected from it. Agreement with the unbelievers is far better than the agreement with the apostates!!"
  • "The works of the Deobandi's are more unclean than the various works of the Hindu's. The doubt about the heresy of Ashraf Ali Deobandi and suspicion about his punishment is also unbelief. To cleanse the impurity with the papers of the works produced by the Deobandi's is not lawful, not because of the respect for their books, but because of the reverence of the letters with which they have been written."
  • "The Wahhabi's are more contemptuous than Iblis, indeed more mischievous and more straying than he, for the Shaytan does not tell a lie, but they tell a lie!!"
  • "A woman is capable of committing fornication. Then according to the opinion of your leader and teacher, it is necessary that your God too should be capable of committing fornication - otherwise the prostitutes of the brothers of the Deobandi's would laugh at Him and say: 'How do you claim for Godhead? You are not capable of doing which even we can do?' This naturally implies that your God must possess a female sexual organ - otherwise where will be the sexual intercourse?"
Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20021128102829/ahnaaf.tripod.com

PS: I have been blocked because I wanted to add this info here on Wikipedia.

The policies and guidelines of Wikipedia states that:

But they don't apply the rules equally to all people.

Salam (Peace). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.55.67.1 (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Warofdreams/2015&oldid=1077685277"