Archives

Archive 1

• Per your unblock appeal at UTRS I've restored your talk page access to allow you to post an unblock request here in the interest of transparency. As I noted to you in my response at UTRS, any use of this page outside of making an unblock requests and/or answering questions regarding an unblock will result in the talk page access being revoked. Good luck with your appeal. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I would try to abide and get fellow admins confidence back.Md iet (talk)

__Unblock Request__ This request is for making an appeal to fellow Admins to consider my case so that I can rejoin Wiki for making positive contributions.

I feel ashamed at looking at the sock puppetry page on my name. It was only adamancy that fellow associate with independent view are not sock, but now I fully understood that any of your influence or help will also matter and you are still a defaulter, whether Wiki notice it or not.

I was also adamant in accepting friendly advice of fellow editors/admins to restrain from DB related articles, but I could further understand now how to avoid such editions and why neutral looking information with proper source are critical for making Wiki more powerful and effective.

There were problems and allegations that I was having pro tilt toward DB related article. Everyone has some tilt toward toward his POV, but it is to be presented in consideration all POV. I would try to correct my self in this line. Till I improve further, I will voluntarily not edit DB related pages and work with their talk pages.

I apologize for the inconvenience caused to Wiki because of me, and feel isolated to make any positive contribution in Wiki platform most admired by me.

Hoping to have a fair chance.Md iet (talk)

Hello, Md iet, I have restored your basic editing rights, as per the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive278#Standard_offer_unblock_request_from_Md_iet. However, you may only continue editing under the following restrictions:

1. You will not edit any articles which relate to Dawoodi Bohra, even distantly.
2. You will not participate in discussions on Talk:Dawoodi Bohra, nor on talk pages of Dawoodi Bohra-related articles.
3. You will not participate in discussions regarding Dawoodi Bohra or related topics on English Wikipedia.

If you are not sure if a topic in which you interested would fall under this ban, then ask an uninvolved editor for advice before editing articles or participating in discussions about that topic.

Please review the policies on WP:Neutral point of view, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:Original research before resuming your editing.

I look forward to seeing your positive contributions to the English Wikipedia.--Aervanath (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Aervanath:, with hope that my new inning is as per your expectations. Md iet (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Condition 1 and 2 are perfectly clear and there is no confusion at all.

Regarding 3, I am in no mood to discuss DB related matters.

I will be thankful to fellow editors/Admin if it is acceptable that I just point out my POV to neutral editor like Ajaymehra/Qwerrtus on their talk page, no discussion, and let them decide to put forward or not in their own manner wherever they want if they feel it right.

Thanking again to all concerned to give me a chance to prove myself. Md iet (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you made some edits to the infobox of the article on Husayn ibn Ali regarding his children.[1] According to one of your edit summaries, your change was so that "children [were] listed in sequence of age and as per reliable sources." It would be really helpful if you would modify the section on "Family" to list the children in chronological order, giving their mother's, and citing the reliable sources that you referred to. This would improve the article a lot.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for suggestion.--Md iet (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You've been proposing removing the word "Gaṇarājya" from the lead of India ever since April, without getting any consensus (or indeed any agreement whatsoever) for it. And every now and then you come back to say "Hope by now I can presume having consensus".[2][3][4] You keep very politely inviting people to comment, and I get the impression that you think if they don't comment, they can be presumed to agree with you. But that shows a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works; without active agreement, you don't have consensus. Everybody on Wikipedia is a volunteer, many of them busy in real life, and you have to be satisfied with them registering disagreement once. Silence does not give consent! All that happens when you keep making the same proposal, and suggesting that there's probably consensus for it 'by now', is that people get impatient with you, as I'm sure you've seen. Please realise that nobody agrees with your suggestion and stop making it. It's time to move on. Bishonen | talk 09:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen:, Thanks for taking time to put your comment and advice. It seems you have not properly understood my proposal and motive behind. "Ganrajya" means republic and it is associated with "Republic of India" as "Bharat Ganrajya". 'Republic of India' given alternate Hindi word but main name 'India' remain without alternate. My aim is to add alternative Common name "Bharat" (known to billions English literate) along with main name 'India'. People have objection for adding alternative with both 'India' as well as 'Republic of India' of clumsiness. As 'republic' is secondary word and clarified else at Information box, it can be avoided in the lead.

I will be happy if both name "India" as well as "republic of India" are with alternate word in the official language of India, but "India" should have the alternate name written along with it first.

Earlier my proposition was to add "Bharat" as alternate English name. Due to lack of sufficient reliable references it was dropped. Now this is a separate proposal with altogether different reasoning. With above explanation I request you to revisit my proposal and advice.--Md iet 04:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand. But none of the other editors on the article agree with you. I'm not here to get into the reasons for your suggestion or for other people's lack of enthusiasm for it, but purely as an uninvolved administrator to advise you to drop it now. Repeating it on the article talkpage is becoming disruptive. Also, as regards the article Germany, it seems obvious that the case there is different, as there are no political angles with regard to the name Deutschland, but there are with India or Bharat, as you mention yourself ("Tamil people of India which are a minority part are against Hindi for political reasons"). I'm sure both you and people like User:RegentsPark and User:SpacemanSpiff know far more about those angles than I do, so I decline to enter into a discussion of them. The other people on talk also seem to feel that they have come to the end of discussing it — you see how they first referred you to WP:IDHT, WP:TE and WP:DE (did you click on those links and read?) and then stopped answering you altogether? Please be more sensitive to the exhaustion of other volunteers. I'm sure you have other interests on Wikipedia than simplifying the first sentence of India to make it "short and less clumsy" — don't you? To me that seems a very minor matter. Unless there are underlying political motives which I don't understand. But in either case, please drop the issue or I will have to consider article banning you from India and Talk:India. Bishonen | talk 13:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, My motive is to give reader a common name at the beginning itself, but I also feel, there seems to strong political motives and a group denying the same, which shouldn't happen at fare Wikipedia. Anyway I am dropping it at present as per your advice, but experience admin like User:SpacemanSpiff (seems to be Tamilian) should work in the interest of Wikipedian mass users.

Please don't blame me for hidden motives. My motives were made very clear in my explanation. When I proposed 'Bharat' addition and not removing 'Bharat Ganrajya', people just deleted it claiming that it is making sentence more clumsy. My explanation of clumsiness was given due to that reason. My main intention was never to remove clumsiness but only give fare ness in expression on which Wikipedia shouldn't bulge.--Md iet (talk) 04:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed some of the content you added to the above article, as it appears to have been copied from here or elsewhere online. Perhaps the Indian mine safety directorate performs the same functions as that in the United States, but regardless, it's not okay to copy this content without saying where you got it. — Diannaa (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per my decision as the banning admin, which I've logged at AE, you are now free to edit talk pages and other pages regarding the Dawoodi Bohra, except articles. The article ban remains in place. Let me know if you have any questions, Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks EdJohnston, hope this would help me to point out/propose contribution. I understand that articles 'regardingDawoodi Bohra' covers all the Dawoodi Bohra specific articles topics having involvement of the community. General Islam / earlier history article common with other section of Islam covers vast subjects and no way directly interfere with Dawoodi Bohra interest.--Md iet (talk) 03:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Robvanvee. Md iet, thanks for creating Fakhruddin Shaheed!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. The article still needs references and expansion.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Robvanvee 16:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for suggestions, specific categories added. Will appreciate if you can help further in the matter suggested.--Md iet (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your topic ban has been lifted. [5] Please remember what EdJohnston advised when editing this topic. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Abdul Husain Husamuddin, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for Deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discusion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 12:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the copyright web page http://www.ismaili.net/heritage/node/10624. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I would recheck.--Md iet (talk) 02:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While the <gallery> tag is a good way to prevent the main article text from going all over the place, it is not an excuse to create galleries of marginally relevant photos just to decorate a page. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gallery! Images should be used only to provide a better understanding of what is being said in a text. If you are interested in making galleries, use Commons, e.g. c:Al-Masjid_al-Nabawi_المسجد_النبوي. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sir , for watching my contributions to an Eagle's eye. Photos selected are of important locations of the subject articles having historical values and architectural importance in themselves, making value addition. You are always welcome to replace them with better ones.Md iet (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please can you suggest a good article for "Bohras" to link to in {{Shia Imam Chart}} (bottom left)? At the moment it goes to a disambiguation page listing several meanings of Bohra, but I'm not sure which meaning is most appropriate for this template. Thanks, Certes (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC) Bohra may link readers to proper destination. Necessary correction is done, thanks.--Md iet (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fatema , Ali and Shia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. HyperGaruda (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mohammad Family tree has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. HyperGaruda (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zaidiyyah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zaidi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Isma'ilism.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.0.75 (talk) [reply]

Last insertion of chart on 10th October in Isma'ilism was done by [6], and not me. I have tried to satisfy editors, will take care further.--Md iet (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC) If you want to remove the chart added by somebody else, don't make me scapegoat here.--Md iet (talk) 03:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Tree shia islam nn .pdf requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F10 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file that is not an image, sound file or video clip (e.g. a Word document or PDF file) that has no encyclopedic use.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Md iet. 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]

Sheikh Galip has been introduced into the picture. His name is Galip Hassan Kuscuoglu. But when you say Sheikh Galip he will be confused with the very famous Mevlevi Şeyh Galip. i.e. the name Şeyh Galip should be resevered for Şeyh Galip. Thanks108.31.158.157 (talk) 02:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, necessary correction made. Will be thankful further if such guidance is continued.--Md iet (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the chart, it looks like most of the tariqat emerged from Alewite which is not correct. This should be corrected. All these tariqat are Alevi, and Alevism is not connected to Nusayrism.108.31.158.157 (talk) 03:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Imam chart0a.pdf

Same comments for this one as well. Alewite is not related to the most of the tariqat in this chart but it looks like they are Alewite108.31.158.157 (talk) 03:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Imam chart-qizil.pdf

Same comment for this chart as well. Bektashism had been influenced by Hurufism but it is not ghulat, it is more related to Sufism and Alevism. On the other hand Alewite/Nusayrism is like Hurufism i.e. ghulat. This should be corrected in the other charts as well, thanks. 108.31.158.157 (talk) 03:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--Md iet (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If Nusayrism and Hurufism are ghulat. It might be considered assigning same color for these sects other than gray, since the latter would be confused with Twelver108.31.158.157 (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --Md iet (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Imam chart-bektashi.pdf

Same comments for this one too. Acoording to chart, it looks like Alevis and Bektaşis are ghulat and Alewite is sufi, I think it should be the opposite. Alevis and Bektaşis are not ghulat but Sufism.108.31.158.157 (talk) 04:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about Hurufi? Is it Ghulat?--Md iet (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Q: Do they consider Fazlallah Astarabadi (Naimi) as God incarnate? Nusayrism considers Ali as God incarnate. I think Hurufis consider Fazlallah Astarabadi (Naimi) as God incarnate. If the answer is yes, Then both of them are ghulat. But Alevis and Bektaşis are not ghulat..161.253.75.216 (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --Md iet (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Md iet, please stop adding advocacy to the FGM articles. Those articles must reflect the views and language of high-quality, mainstream, appropriate sources. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, please help improving rather complete deletion.--Md iet (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you consider showing Pamir Ismailism (Türkistan Alevîliği) founded by Nasir Khusraw al-Qubadiani in some of your related templates, too. Thanks..161.253.75.216 (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely.--Md iet (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zoeb bin Moosa; looks like his name is forgotten, thanks.161.253.75.216 (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He was first Dai-ul-Mutlaq and part of the Dai box depicted.--Md iet (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Md iet, re: these edits, I asked you in December not to add any more advocacy to FGM articles. If it happens again, at that article or any other, I intend to ask that you be topic-banned from the area. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I want to apologize for using rollback to revert your edit. For some reason I wasn't able to load the page to revert manually; I kept getting a "secure connection failed" message. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it advocacy to make viewer aware about the all the information available in reliable sources regarding the matter to come to right approach for solution? Being the sensitive issue, I realize that better it be discussed before inclusion of any matter in the article. In future I will take care of it. In my last edition in religious view, matter revised by me was of my inclusion only.

To help aware the menace of doing FGM using whatever methods available and making the life of innocents venerable, a better approach is required to control the dangerous practice.--Md iet (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the edit is that it relied on a 29-year-old non-MEDRS source for a health issue. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oldness and type of the report is not so important if it is based on actual survey done. Only matter most is whether it is authentic.--Md iet (talk) 13:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Age and type of report matter a great deal. For health issues, sources must comply with WP:MEDRS. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User talk:EdJohnston#User:Md iet. User:SlimVirgin is proposing you be banned either from Female Genital Manipulation or from the Dawoodi Bohra. You can reply on my talk page if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed that you be banned from the topic of FGM across all of WP:ARBIPA. See this post. You can reply if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have already proposed my self to take self styled topic ban from FGM and in fact already started practicing. Thanks Ed, for hearing my just arguments and considering them. I will further abide by guidelines given by you. Thanking again,Md iet (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again User:Md iet. You have offered to take a 'self styled topic ban from FGM'. Just to clarify, that means you will agree not to edit on the topic of Female genital mutilation anywhere on Wikipedia, neither articles, talk pages, or in project space? Such a ban would apply not just to FGM by the Dawoodi Bohra but everywhere. Let me know. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per your analysis I “may not be able to edit neutrally about Female genital mutilation as it applies to the practices of the Dawoodi Bohra”. Hence the main concern is for my comments or modification where DB is involved. Although In my self styled topic ban I have not specified any boundry and I will constrain myself from the topic, but defining it further as above by you is not understood. Thanks,Md iet (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That means you would also be agreeing not to edit Female genital mutilation or Talk:Female genital mutilation. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. In future as I get more conversant as of SV on the topic, I may take help of them to add my views at least to talk page to make life of FGC/FGM affected some what better. Thanks, Md iet (talk) 12:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, per the above discussion I will be entering this voluntary restriction in WP:EDR:

User:Md iet has agreed to abstain indefinitely from making edits about Female genital mutilation on all pages of Wikipedia, including both articles and talk. This is a voluntary ban but it can be enforced by blocks. The ban can be appealed in six months (that is, after 11 November 2018) at WP:AN.

Do you agree? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as per above discussion, Md iet (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Logged at WP:Editing restrictions, in the 'Voluntary' section. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, although I have agreed as above, but when the ban is voluntary, is there any guidelines to restrict appealing period? If it is not, it has to be also voluntary.Md iet (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is normal to have some interval before an appeal is allowed. If you believe six months is too severe, what would you propose instead? And how should people verify in the future that you have become able to edit neutrally about Female genital mutilation? EdJohnston (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, EdJohnston, Six months is not an issue, but when the ban is voluntary, person proposing it seems know his limitations and he is to be best judge. Let him come out with appeal when he finds himself fit; decision to allow him further or not is always rest with Wiki.Md iet (talk) 10:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you can appeal the ban at any time, but anybody reviewing your appeal will expect to see some evidence that the previous problems won't recur. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.  Bishonen | talk 14:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Template:Z33

• I don't mean to nag you about the discretionary sanctions, Md iet, but it looks like it was over a year since you were last reminded of them. That means you're supposed to get a new alert. Bishonen | talk 14:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]