Hello, Md iet, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! rmosler (talk) 06:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Hi, thanks for you edits last year to pages about Maryam, Daud etc.

Please note that in Wikipedia, there is a difference between disambiguation pages and articles about names. The first are just a form of index, not articles, so it is not appropriate to include much background information there. MOS:DABNAME sets out some differences between these types of pages. I hope this is helpful.

Ramadan mubarak, and happy editing! - Fayenatic (talk) 08:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever you copy something within Wikipedia, you must, without exception, attribute the original article in the edit summary of the transfer. This is because the CC-BY-SA and GFDL licenses require that authors be credited with their work, so the copied info must be linked to the original article. You can find the exact legal and other explanations at WP:Copying within Wikipedia.

But, more importantly, you should almost never be copying such a large chunk of text from one article to another. Instead, you should summarize the original article in a few paragraphs (or less, depending on the size of the original and the target paragraphs), then add the {{Main}} template at the top of the new section. Then anyone who is interested in the topic will click through the link and read it there. While some duplication is okay, the whole advantage of having a fully linked encyclopedia is that it's not necessary, and anyone who wants to know more can easily get it, but those who don't, and only care about the main topic, don't have to wade through it. This keeps each article focused and not overlong. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Jesus in Islam, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Firstly, those changes have been disputed, so if you wish to change the naming used in the article, please discuss it on the Talk page first and get a consensus. Also, a blanker "find and replace" breaks a number of links, because the name occurs in those too -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, 'find and replace" was not used by me, I have tried to make broken links and supported some one's right intentions as I feel. If you feel those name change is still disputed, we may support these on talk page to represent Wiki better by all.--Md iet (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. OK, maybe you made the changes one at a time then, but some of the links really were still broken. But such a large scale change, away from the names most usually used in the English speaking world (this is the English language Wikipedia, after all), would need a discussion and consensus on the Talk page first. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Boing!, Very well, this is an English language Wikipedia, but "Maryam" is a personal Noun(which don't affected by language, name is after all a name) used by Millions of readers who also read English language Wikipedia and you can't neglect them in their specific article if you talk of international Wikipedia. Just think over again!--Md iet (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm just saying that you would need to discuss it on the Talk page first and get a consensus. If you do that, and the community supports you, that will be fine -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding the point, first tell me do you convinced with my argument and what is your reaction as genuine reader?--Md iet (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I've posted a few discussion points at Talk:Dawoodi Bohra to help us figure out how to improve the article. I'd appreciate your dropping by to provide input on how to move forward. I've also finally added a few long-overdue footnotes to the article, and have noted that there are plenty of materials on GoogleBooks covering the DBs, so really no excuse not to footnote this article while we're improving it. Looking forward to hearing from you on the Talk page. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I would appreciate it if you could visit Talk:Muhammad. The article, Muhammad, has changed in a significant way since it originally passed WP:GA several years ago. It now states in the opening paragraph that Mohammad is the Founder of Islam and has relegated to a note at the end of the article that Muslims, themselves don't believe this. I have started a discussion on the talk page concerning this and would value your input. Thanks so much. Veritycheck (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realise you are ignoring a lengthy discussion on the article's talk page about this? The wording I put in was discussed at length and received the most support of any proposal. I suggest you self-revert and go to the talk page to discuss it. DeCausa (talk) 10:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC) I think there is no clear consensus reached on talk page for the matter you have added. We can't edit for the matter having different meaning then of cited reference please.--Md iet (talk) 12:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all this is the version that has most support in the talk discussion. You have put in edits that either have NO support (your last two edits) ot has LESS support (your first edit). Secondly, if you had read the talk page carefully, you would have seen the difference between "Non-Muslims" and "generally" was discussed. "Generally" is an accurate summary of the source because it is counterbalanced by the statement that muslims don't accept it. You did not participate in the talk page discussion. The correct way for you to proceed is to open up a new thread and to put forward your proposal. If you continue to put in edits which have not been first discussed on the talk page that will be disruptive and edit-warring. DeCausa (talk) 05:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Md iet i have seen you agreement on RMs. I would be glad if you ask more and more peoples to participate in it that have Knowledge of Islam. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 08:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-created the page Nuh (name), and made a split between it and Nuh the disambiguation page, according to the guidance at MOS:DABNAME.

Please would you stop doing what you have recently done to Nuh, Maryam and Ishak? These were longstanding disambiguation pages, i.e. giving the alternative meanings that might have been intended by a link to them. Sometimes editors agreed that there is a primary topic, see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, in which case the simple page name can be redirected to the article on that topic, and the disambiguation index can be moved to a name like Abraham (disambiguation).

Unfortunately you have made changes that were wrong in a few ways: (i) you decided that there was a primary topic, without discussion. (ii) You copied and pasted the content of pages to new or different pages. If a move had been agreed, the page should have been moved in order to keep the previous versions in the page history. See WP:MOVE. (iii) You have created pages with (name) in the title, but mixed up entries that are not about human names; see MOS:DABNAME.

I hope this is helpful. Let me know if it is confusing. – Fayenatic London 10:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Agreed, Thanks, You are very much right. We are proposing request move at various Islamic prophet pages where there is obvious justification of having primary topic on their Islamic name. Only thing is we have to formerly agree and decide action as you have cited for Abraham (disambiguation). Hope everybody will think rational and make Wiki really a better platform of information for all.--Md iet (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem not to understand why people objected to mass moves at Talk:Abraham in Islam#Requested move, Talk:Abraham in Islam##Requested Redirects, related to above, and Talk:Ibrahim (disambiguation)#Requested move.

People may support some of what you want to achieve, but still object to how you try to make it happen.

The point is simple. The case should be made individually for articles.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i have just made a template Template:'Isa and had placed it at Jesus in Islam but was reverted can you look into the template and restore the template on the article. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess i was a bit late to show up as the talk at Nuh has been closed but you can ask for me in any other discussion in the future. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Juyushi Mosque,Cairo, different historic views.pdf. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm responding to your message at Talk:Nuh.

To reiterate the maths: in the case of Ibrahim, total traffic to other meanings was less than half the traffic to the disambiguation page; therefore, a primary meaning was demonstrated for that one. In the case of Nuh, the total traffic to other meanings was large compared to the views of the disambiguation page, so the statistics did not demonstrate a primary meaning. None of your other arguments proved that there was a primary meaning either.

Please think about the points made on the page WP:FLOG, which is a reference to the expression "flogging a dead horse".

On your user page, you helpfully admit that you are not an expert in English. I sometimes have difficulty understanding your arguments, and suspect that other editors do too. Please understand that I do not mean any offence, but perhaps your contributions might be more useful on other Wikipedias in languages in which you are more fluent.

If you participate in any Muslim message boards, perhaps you could also help by encouraging some learned Muslims who are fluent in English to improve the articles in English Wikipedia about Islamic topics, using reliable sources. Kind regards – Fayenatic London 13:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind reply and advice,

I am participating in English Wiki not due to any language/religious criteria but my interest is that English Wiki being most popular having vast variety of topics and material in it, maximum people should benefit from it. In other languages number of topic are very limited and English is now becoming general language for network communication. Muslims have vast majority of population everywhere and they have started reading/understanding English. For their further upliftment and arousing interest Islam topics need proper identification so that they start taking interest in English wiki and know about world as general further.

I am sorry to all that you have problem in understanding me, but you all are here to help me make the further things to happen.

Regarding "Nuh" I understand that maths is not same as of "Ibrahim" else I could have put the same logic as I have given for "Ibrahim", but here the logic which you have narrated to make redirect of "Ibrahim" to "Abraham" rather than "Abraham in Islam' is important. There are many Christian also who know Prophet as 'Nuh' rather than 'Noah' and this makes total population who know that "Nuh" is prophet manifold than any other person by same name. This justifies ‘Nuh’ for prime topic rather than mathematical traffic figures. I am not flogging a dead horse but flogging a cause please.--Md iet (talk) 10:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this person notable according to WP:BIO? – Fayenatic London 21:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be district level religious/political figure of Pakistan, having viewer traffic of about 300/month, may be counted as notable if this qualification fits Wiki standard.--Md iet (talk) 07:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As he was a member of the Punjab Assembly he is notable. I have added information about him from a reliable source and deleted some of the uncited promotional stuff. The creator of the article appears to be a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. Thanks for bringing this article to my attention. I have proposed the poster for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 March 21--Toddy1 (talk) 09:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! I'm glad you noticed this. – Fayenatic London 14:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the work you put into this article, and for your very valuable photographs of this important religious site. I did however want to point out that when we use a reference source such as ArchNet.org, we have to be very careful. We must not copy the text and just change the wording a little bit here and there in each sentence. That is not enough change to make the wording acceptable for WIkipedia. Instead we need to read the source text several times until we completely understand it, or until we understand most of it, or at least some of it, and then we must put the source aside, and rewrite the information in our own words as best as we can. This is certainly not easy, but it is possible. As it stands the text in the article is not acceptable for Wikipedia. I may have to cut out a lot of the text, but I wanted to give you a chance to completely rewrite it before I do that. Of course the same thing applies to any article that uses text from ArchNet.org or any other similar site. Thank you. 21:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Invertzoo (talk)

Your info and photos are now to be found at Mashhad of Sayyida Ruqayya. I tried to rewrite some of the info taken from ArchNet, but I was not able to understand all the architectural details. Invertzoo (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Zaynab bint Ali may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• The following history quote mentioned in media/web ([http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/islam-dir/99114-heroine-kerbela-visit-mosques-sayeeda-zainab.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your requested moves are incorrectly formulated. Please use

Because right now, your requests appear to want to move the disambiguation page on top of "X in Islam" to replace the article with a disambiguation page. You should be entering "X (disambiguation)" into the template as that's what your request rationale says.

-- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editor, There is a discussion going on here. Given your past contribution in the article, it would be nice of you to attend.--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As i stated on the previous editors talk page, no that is not justification to delete the sentence from Mohammed Burhanuddin. I can understand if his followers find it embarrassing that people died as a result of a stampede at his funeral. However, it has every right to be included, as it was widely reported in the news.Fotoriety (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me to discuss before my edit. Well i tell you i don't need to discuss with you or anyone else to include a highly reported event that occurred at the funeral of Mr Burhanuddin. If my edit affects your sensitivities because you are a follower of this man then that is unfortunate, but doesn't warrant your removal of information. If you revert your edit then i will request that senior editors block you from committing your reversion.Fotoriety (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Please give your comments on Talk page of the concerned topic.--Md iet (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mufaddal Saifuddin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Outlook (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) 09:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Please stop. Wikipedia is not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article will be regarded as vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 18:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Summichum, Thanks for your kind advice. Please don't try to become administrator and remain within your rights. It is on 12th Feb 2014 you joined and it seems you have joined Wiki to create misunderstanding, partisan and to propagate and support this special propaganda. You are such a well wisher of Wiki where were you till then.

Regarding POV on claimant, there can be discussion and we may try to reach consensus, but restrain from removing material which is true and well sourced. All the written above is applicable to you first.--Md iet (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Since You have created and edited many Article I Kindly request you to Clean and Regularize this Article to Wikipedia Standards.Your Expertise in this matter is mostly required. Mufaddalqn (talk) 10:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Mufaddalqn, you should stick to this article. It has become battlefield. Crisco 1492 retreated from this page, and so it got harder. OccultZone (Talk) 10:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I would try my best to uphold the neutrality of Wikipedia, I request all editor to restrain from doing unwanted revisions. Neutral point of view and factual well reported matter of both side to be presented in best encyclopedic manner.

Please don't add Syedna title to Muffadal or Qutbuddin and write such matter which implicate that Wiki has endorsed any one. We can write about the factual views quoting the sources and groups as being done. If we can discuss matter regarding any specific information on talk page and have consensus before making correction, it would be nothing like it.--Md iet (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have attempted to clear the article from citation overkill and other irregularities. I hope it is ok with you.if there is any thing I can do please let me know. further I think Mohammed Burhanuddin too should be reorganized.Mufaddalqn (talk) 07:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your support and guidance.Mufaddalqn (talk) 07:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Appointed successor Dai syedi Muffadal BS saifuddin along side Dai Burhanuddin.pdf, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 05:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Mufaddal Saifuddin, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. I would like you to provide reliable sources for the alleged 22 June 2011 nass, and to explain the provenance of the jpg you have uploaded. Do you understand my requests? Sam Sailor ^Sing 04:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC) I would surely try to, I have removed the template with understanding that I have complied the requirement, let me again check please. Anyway Thanks for advice, I would be better more careful next time.--Md iet (talk) 05:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was concentrating on London instance and forgot to countercheck Mumbai ceremony inclusion, anyway it is now corrected, may pl. check again.--Md iet (talk) 09:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mufaddal Saifuddin may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Mohammed Burhanuddin amidst thousands of people and was verified by senior members of the community)”<ref>http://www.badremuneer.in/62%20Reasons/53%20Reasons%20NOT.htm, www.badremuneer.in)(website of registered international Dawoodi Bohra Magazine) Reason # 55: A Call To Reason – The

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mufaddal Saifuddin may have broken the syntax by modifying 3 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Mohammed Burhanuddin amidst thousands of people and was verified by senior members of the community)”<ref>http://www.badremuneer.in/62%20Reasons/53%20Reasons%20NOT.htm, www.badremuneer.in)(website of registered international Dawoodi Bohra Magazine) Reason # 55: A Call To Reason – The

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the page for Amirul Hajj which has been cited to speedy deletion. I would like to know your view on the subject.Mufaddalqn (talk) 06:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a statutory post having religious importance, held by various country vide dignitaries, justified for inclusion pl.--Md iet (talk) 06:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Md Iet,

We both know the artcile is a hoax based on false allegations with misleading references.

You have edited the artcile at the begining :

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qutbi_Bohra&oldid=594319673

All the reference given are from discussion based on Progressive Bohra group. It is forcefully linked with new claimed Qutbi bohra , Please don’t include the matter without any specific proof

Can you please help me to act properly. I do not think this kind of fake article does any credit to a sincere Mufaddal Saifuddin's follower like you.

Best regards, Ftutocdg (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Thanks, for trusting on me. Let me clear, I am a Fatimid follower and I also do not think that new claimed Qutbi Bohra does any credit to anybody. On the basis of support of so called Qutbi Bohra, one party is claiming numbers on follower list, same time they don’t want to officially attach with Qutbi Bohra name to get advantage from Dawoodi Bohra, mainly control on properties. One can’t have ‘ laddus’ in both hands. Either they should be with Dawoodi Bohra+ follow legitimate Fatimid principles + have faith of mass Dawoodi Bohra+ get respect+ improve the system with due consensus OR be on your own+ call whatever you want with minor support+ get support of outsider like so called Qutbi Bohra (Progressive Bohra, who wants to take advantage, require leader for the name sake but no principals, rules of their own) and enjoy with property what you have. No body should tarnish the image of Fatimid culture. It is impossible to get the keys of properties of mass Dawoodi Bohra till you have their support. Sorry, I have given my personal POV, please don’t take it otherwise, truth will prevail.--Md iet (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The notices I deleted from here, have been read/acted upon by me and are not important.--Md iet (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After all, Summichum is blocked for two weeks. But after two weeks he will start putting wrong information again. We both can request admins to block him indefinitely.

Thanks for the support.

It is not me, it is because of support of all wiki lovers.--Md iet (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dawoodi Bohra may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ''The Hidden Imams of the Ismailis'']. Quarterly Journal of the American University of Beirut], Vol. XXI. Nos. 1 2, Edited by Mahmud Ghul. . Sami N. Makarem. At Ismaili.net</ref>
• Yamani, who had attended along with two other witnesses. The transcript was signed by Burhunaddin).<ref name="mumineen">{{cite web | url=http://akhbar.mumineen.org/archive/fatemi-dawat/syedna-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hey please convince admins to put this photo in infobox..

here is the link : http://zeninfosys.net/zen/sites/default/files/styles/akhbar-popup/public/photos/akhbar/huzurala-tus/2012-11/17954/09-11-2012-250765-dsc0273.jpg?itok=kpaJYfdr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.70.181.86 (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Arwa coins.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:

1. 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.
2. 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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support in SPI against me. but sadly I was blocked even when I had not done any sock puppetry. nevertheless thanks to youRukn950 (talk) 07:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Yeah you and me are blocked for no reason. They blocked my ID for indefinite time for SP for Rukn950. this really sucks.--122.168.217.189 (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, It is not a support to you but it is support for a healthy system of Wiki. In implementation of rules there can be some over judgment, but there are editors who can give their comments and there is group of admin which they can always relook at decision. I still feels that Rukn950 intentions are pro wiki, on rules we are beginner and good faith/fact editing is not allowing our conscience to allow nuisance being done on Wiki, but we have to remain within rules. This may be coincidence that Rukn950 and 122.168.217.189 editing could be matching and gave a impression of SP. There is nothing to be sad, rules are made for discipline and we have to honor it. Regarding 122.168.217.189, who is indefinitely blocked, I have suggestion that you put up your explanation desiring and pledging for honoring Wiki rules, Admin will definitely consider your case. Then give your identification name and contribute positively.--Md iet (talk) 03:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My IP is not blocked , but my ID (Mark*****) is blocked indefinetely. I applied for unblock request, but they said you have to wait for 6 months according to our policy.--122.168.217.189 (talk) 04:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is your user ID, may I know?--Md iet (talk) 05:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Markdrows is my ID. But what will you do?--182.70.152.207 (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Markdrows, In the sock puppet matter I feel that you are clean. Please look at [1] and similar editing by you in Wiki is not acceptable. Sorry for lecturing you, but this is public platform and feelings and anger to be restricted to a acceptable genuine limit here. This is free and fare encyclopedic platform, every genuine published information has its right to be presented here whether it is true or false. Good faith editing may also work here till you have full confidence of its trueness, and good intentions but there should not be any even minor genuine opposition. Then there will be third party and consensus is required. Reader will decide what is wrong or right and facts will surface one day, nobody can deny it. Your block seems to be a cumulative effects of your previous edits. One specific/mischievous editors committed to enforce his POV is trying to get involve genuine/good faith editors in his trap. Wiki follows rules and if you want to work with it you have to honor it first. we have to be polite/ disciplined/ and have to follow rules even to fight false presented in encyclopedic manner. There is nothing wrong in having particular POV, as all human being have his own, but there can be clash in POV and all pov is to presented here, becoming NPOV. I can not do much accept declaring you as clean of sock pupating, but you can all accept your past behavior openly, there can be mistakes from anybody, but there should be acceptance and desire to improve. Pledge for behaving in Wikepedian manner, Wiki admin will do best possible for you. Sorry again, and thanks for believing me.--Md iet (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mohammed Burhanuddin may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• html OUP Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World: Muhammad Burhanuddin] at archive.mumineen.org]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

A "neutral" summary of 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) obviously cannot use mumineen.org factual statements, given its headline

"Bohras adhere to the Shia Fatimi tradition of Islam, headed by the 53rd Dai al-Mutlaq, Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS."

This is clearly a partisan website. I reverted your edit as I consider it a violation of WP:NPOV. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find your revert, removing the Hindustan Times source in favor of a twisted representation of other sources, highly disruptive. Thanking me for introducing a neutral point of view and then undoing it only makes this worse. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Dear Qwertyus, that was due to over sight, copy paste mistake. Detailed reply given there.--Md iet (talk) 10:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop pushing your POV on Mohammed Burhanuddin#Succession controversy. As I've indicated before, I don't really care what you find important; I care what reliable third-party sources find important. You keep adding the phrase "Court proceedings indicates numbers of succession pronouncements", where the source only describes the lawyer of one party announcing to produce evidence of such pronouncements. Also, you've still not provided proof of this diary entry being important in any way, except it being announced as important by one side in the conflict. Since neither the veracity nor the importance of the diary entry is established by reliable sources (as you indicate in your own edits, which restore sources marked with {{verify credibility}}), it doesn't belong on the page (yet). My main quarrel is not with the readability of your edits, but with their verifiability and neutrality.

I suggest we resolve this issue on 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) and its talk page, instead of going into an edit war. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but the reader should be made aware of the important documetary information available in the relavent article please.--Md iet (talk) 10:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then establish its importance. There has to have been some more recent coverage of the court case. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The content of document itself speak about it's importance. Source 'describes the lawyer of one party announcing to produce evidence of such pronouncements' with even mention of all the specific years. These all are part of court proceeding hence the sentence "The court proceeding indicates numbers of succession pronouncements' is a well sourced statement. Only details of 1969 case is from the source affilated with one party hence we may call it from primary source. We may doubt on story but copy of 'written document' presented is a written proof from primary source and as per WP:WPNOTRS it claims space in the related article. --Md iet (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which document specifically you're referring to, but your reading of WP:PRIMARY is off. It explicitly states (and this is policy): "Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them", adding in a footnote, "Any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources." Given the existing dispute over 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) I say that both the veracity and the importance of the diary entry represent exceptional claims.

Of course, the statement that one side of the dispute has produced a document that they say is a diary entry by the late Syedna etc. is not an exceptional claim; I see no reason to doubt the reporting on that. But then WP:UNDUE comes into play: in what is supposed to be a short summary of a dispute, you shouldn't present one side's arguments but not the other's, and when you go into detail on both sides, it's no longer a summary. The fact that the other page is under dispute means you have to be extra careful.

Let me ask you a question: what exactly is wrong, in your opinion, with the summary of the dispute that is currently displayed at Mohammed Burhanuddin#Succession? In my reading, these are the key points of that section:

1. the Syedna appointed his son successor and the Dahwoodi Bohra community agreed;
2. Khuzaima Qutbuddin and a group of believers did not agree;
3. the late Syedna's son won the support of a majority.

Is this an accurate, neutral, well-sourced summary? Are these not the key points of what should be on the controversy article? If not, why not? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:WPNOTRS: 'Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.'

This policy allows for: 'specific facts may be taken from primary sources'. In the present case specific fact is a 'written document a dairy entry (which itself clarify all the doubts)'. Hence as per WP:WPNOTRS this source can be used.

The key points mentioned above are definitely key points, but still some key points remain hidden,which are very important as the article is on Burhanuddin. Hence summary is incomplete, some 'specific facts' related with subject Burhanuddin are hidden. The present ‘succession’ summary give message: 1. After stroke , Burhanuddin appointed Mufaddal in 2011 and community agreed. 2. After Burhanuddin’s demise mufaddal took office in 2014. 3. This challenged by Khuzaima who claims being appointed 50 years earlier.

This summary is not correct and not complete as per sources.

1.The appointment declaration of 2011 was not first decl;aration after stroke, but a public reconfirmation of earlier appointment, which was originally first made in 1969. This is clearly indicated in the court case proceedings : “That pronouncement was made in 1969, 1994 and 2005 and only reconfirmation was done in 2011”.

2. Obviously Mufaddal took office after Burhanuddin’sdemise in 2014, but

3. The challenge was made by Khuzaima in 2014 and not before . This fact remain hidden as timing is very important.

Hence the present summary not depicting the full information available in various reliable sources.

Regarding your objection of presenting only arguments of one side, it is right. We may summarise the sentence further. But this is article of Burhanuddin and the all the action done by him on succession need full coverage , but definitely in NPOV manner considering the dispute raised.--Md iet (talk) 06:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Moulai Hasan Fir is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moulai Hasan Fir until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Summichum (talk) 03:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks md, for your support at the page.Qazxcv1234 (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fakhruddin Shaheed is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fakhruddin Shaheed until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Summichum (talk) 09:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Moulai Abadullah is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moulai Abadullah until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Summichum (talk) 02:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mohammad Ejuddin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Ejuddin until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Summichum (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Please don't incite me for doing another violation.--Md iet (talk) 04:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks qaz. I also have similar feelings and feel responsible for action on you. It is your start and in the beginning itself you got in trouble. As pointed out by me, I agree with your test analysis and their is ample possibility that IT experts may diagnose the case and you can get relief.

Looking to all over comments we are getting, I feel that any further action even if legitimate may give adverse message and we should avoid it if we respect Wiki.

I have complete belief on Wiki system and on independents admins/ checks etc. The culprit will fail and truth will prevail.

Regarding your suggestion of mail etc. I don't have knowledge about the facility, but in the messages I have read that we can mail other admin etc. I think it is better if we don't act further on that line, and let us keep our position as it is. Let the admin decide on our fate.

Thanks for your support. The fellow is behind our origin, I guess your firm belief on our old system. Please read above notice, this fellow is inciting for making further aggressive action and get trap us further.

I have requested all the fellow editor above who are critics but will help in Wikipedian process. Please don't act in hurry. If you want to appeal against your block, you can do it as per guide lines given in notice, but I advice that as the case is very complicated, please request to only admin concerned and they can only help us better in this type of situation.--Md iet (talk) 05:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mean time please have a watch on the related articles and activity of that particular editor.--Md iet (talk) 05:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:EdJohnston, User:Mike V and, User:Kww, may please compare below two editing work:

1. Done by Md iet on 25th November, 2014 [2] :-

Previous edit: Revision as of 11:54, 25 November 2014 (edit), Dawoodibohra5253 (talk | contribs)

Next edit: Revision as of 12:09, 25 November 2014 (edit) (undo), Md iet (talk | contribs) Added ‘Claimaint’

2. Done by Qazxcv1234 on 14 December,2014 [3] :-

Previous edit:-, Revision as of 04:31, 14 December 2014 (edit), Summichum (talk | contribs)

Next edit →Revision as of 04:33, 14 December 2014 (edit) (undo), Qazxcv1234 (talk | contribs) Removed ‘Claimaint’

Can you notice two complete different attitude? One fellow ADDING ‘claimaint’ word and another one DELETING the same.

How these fellow can be sockpuppet?

Isn’t it interesting?--Md iet (talk) 11:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hasan Badruddin (17th Dai) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hasan Badruddin (17th Dai) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Summichum (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]