User talk:Yahya01: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:00, 30 April 2007

Welcome!

Hello, Yahya01, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! gren グレン ^? 19:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and Ahmadiyya

Please don't remove this group from Islam related pages. I am not sure why you did it but they do belong there. Thanks. gren グレン ^? 19:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Runn Kutch

Runn Kutch obviously had to become a redirect but if there was anything useful in your version do please copy it to the Rann of Kutch article. -- RHaworth 00:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Salam_Nobel.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Salam_Nobel.jpeg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 19:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism and distortion of facts by Jamaatis

You are herby warned not to vandalize any pages. The Chenab Nagar was vandalized and I have also reverted your changes in Jamaat-e-Islami page. Please do not add or delete any information from these pages.

Siddiqui 01:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trying to change the history!!! All of these are well documented facts, like it or not. Yahya 02:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yahya. I noticed the links you recently added to Jamaat-e-Islami. Some are excellent sources, eg Al Qaeda-Pakistani ties deepen. One was already there though, Jamaat-e-Islami's Danish Friends & is therefore duplicated. There are a few that refer to Bangladesh though, so would they not be better placed in Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh? I ask this because on the talk page Talk:Jamaat-e-Islami#Sri_Lanka, 61.2.201.1 stated, "Pakistan, JI Hind, JI Banglades and JI Srilanka are different Islamic parties. Though they share same idiology they differ in policies, according to the situations of respective countries. They are not branches of a sigle international organization." Do you believe this statement to be correct? Veej 12:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edited links. Hope they are better. Yahya 02:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Militancy - re: Maulana Maududi

First of all, I intriduce myself - my name is Tanzeel. It seems you are continuing to keep on editing this page to mention militancy despite the insistence of the majority to leave it as it was, and a user named Siddiqui is rightfully reverting these changes. Youy are, however, correct in the fact that Maulana Maududi has been an inspiration to many Islamist militants (even if Maududi himself did not espouse this ideology, any analysis of his texts and any scholar wioth sound knowledge of political history of the subcontinent would confirm this). Therefore it is wrong not to mention these comments about militancy. However, these issues are all dealt with in the criticisms section. Nevertheless, I have followed up your ostensible insistence on the mention of militancy in the introduction and inserted a sentence about this. I hope this will satisfy you. WIth regards other edits made by you, I see no reason why the sentence "one of the most influential Muslim theologians of the 20th century" should be removed. While you, as well as myself, may not be fans of the Maulana, there is no denying the fact that he is one of the most influential and important Muslim scholars of the 20th century - love him or hate him. Also, Jamaat-e-Islami is a Islamic political party, this is the nature of teh Jamaat there is consensus amongst almost everyone by this description. While the evidence suggests some militant ties, these are unconfirmed and disputable - and even so, that has no bearing on the nature of the Jamaat as a political party. Jamaat-e-Islami is not a professedly militant organisation, like Sipah-i-Sahaba or Lashkar-e-Jhangvi etc. Its militant ties are discussed in the Jamaat-e-Islami article, but it was founded by Maududi strictly as a professed political party. Therefore, your description of the Jamaat is strictly incorrect, inaccurate and wholly biased. Also, your decision to omit the mention of political and social movements inspired by Maududi is without basis - sans doute, Maududi did inspire several political and social movements, but not militant movements. Later on in the history of Jamaat-e-Islami, it began to support Hezb-e-Islami in Afghanistan - but that has nothing to do with Maududi, as Hezb-e-Islami was founded separately from the Jamaat and was inspired by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and the desire to expel the Soviets. Also, Yahya's decision to call Maududi and Qutb 'leading Muslim militants' is also completely incorrect. Qutb was an important Islamic scholar who, although espousing violent action at times, was no militant and did not participate in militant activities and the same applies for Maududi - no proof exists to the contrary. Also, I would like to inform you that Maududi was a direct descendent of the prophet Muhammad and there is an established lineage tree which anys serious researcher or scholar can readily find - no dispute exists about Maududi's lineage. Therefore, in conclusion, I hope Yahya you are satisfied with my refutation of your edits which are baseless, biased and incorrect. Nevertheless, I take your point about militancy, which is good of you to have raised and I have taken this view on board and made a relevent edit. Lastly, please do not take any of this to mean any animosity, please let us respect each others' views, but wikipedia is not a soapbox for views - it is for neutrality, impartiality and accuracy. Also, let it be known, I am no fan of Maududi and I am no "jamaati". From your edits and articles you seem to be an Ahmadiya Muslim, I respect this fact and I sympathise with the atrocities committed against your community. Please, let not there be hate, but regarding your edits to the Maududi article, let us settle it with the compromised version by me. If you insist on editing it to your biased and incorrect version in breach of countless wikipedia NPOV rules, I will be left with no other option but to refer you and the article to moderators. I hope you are satisfied. Peace be with you. (Tanzeel 19:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I disagree with you. Maudoodi was a big cause of the 1953 violent Anti-Ahmadiyya riots and this certainly makes him militant if not outright terrorist.

I don’t see any majority here that is arguing otherwise but at the same time majority alone does not make something correct, we need to see the facts. Can you provide reference to Maudoodi’s linage? Just because someone comes up with a bunch of names is not a proof of anything.

I appreciate your desire to discuss this issue and also the fact that you do not consider yourself biased. It is however a fact that "mainstream" Muslims are short of heroes lately (in the last 600 years) and there has been a need to come up with some and further, post 9/11 there is need to re-write history to show them less militant then they actually were for reasons of political corrections. Whether this is done consciously (like users like Siddiqui) or sub- consciously it is wrong either way. Your changes are unacceptable as they practically deny the element of militancy. Yahya

Blocked for 3RR on Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi

I've blocked you [1] for WP:3RR on Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi. Please discuss this here, if you wish to. William M. Connolley 20:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Edit summary

Hello. Please remember to always provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy editing. Pepsidrinka 06:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Yahya 06:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Ragib 02:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from blanking other people's comments from talk pages.

Please refrain from removing {{fact}} tags, i.e. citation requests from articles.

Thank you. --Ragib 18:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing {{fact}}

- * {{fact}} tags against unsourced statements were again reverted back in Rabwah. I have reported this behaviour to administrators. Please provide source instead of removing {{fact}}. --Webkami 17:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restored above comment back. --Webkami 11:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the Muhammad Zafrulla Khan article, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

Feel free to re-submit a new version of the article. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later."

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page. --Ragib 10:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Rabwah

I am sorry but by deleting {{NPOV}} without making any changes to the article or consensus of other editors you are not making the article Neutral. Also by removing the warning given to you on your talk page (about removing {{fact}}) the history is not going to change. Please discuss the removal on talk page rather than removing it and hoping that nobody will notice. --Webkami 11:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

an advice from a fellow countryman

pl don't try to sponser your views on wikipedia be polite enough.Or you will be blocked by somedody.I don't need further blocking of peolple related to Pakistan.User talk:Yousaf465 18:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about?

Lahore Resolution

Hi, pls don't revert encyclopedic edits. Your point has been taken and put in a note in the article. Adding blatant copies from other websites is not an advisable practice. If you have any concerns, you can discuss them on article's Talk page. thanks. --IslesCape^Talk 19:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how putting an invisible note helps while this info is much solid than is being used currently. What blatant copy from other website are you talking about? Don't just make up things as you go.

You seem to have simply copy-pasted text from webpage. Adding external link into main text is also not encyclopedic. Adding notes is common practice on WP instead of stuffing the main text which distorts reader. --IslesCape^Talk 19:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yahya01, you have reverted the article 5 times. This is a violation of 3 revert rule. --Ragib 19:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule on Lahore Resolution. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes rather than engaging in an edit war, and not to insert text which may violate copyright. The duration of the block is 24 hours. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may place {{unblock|reason here}} on this page to request a review. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are now blocked for 48 hours, as you've continued the revert war by editing anonymously during your block. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your block has been extended on account of your making personal attacks. Please refrain from making insulting comments to other editors. Rama's arrow 22:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issue with 1953 Anti-Ahmadiyya Movement

Hello. Concerning your contribution, 1953 Anti-Ahmadiyya Movement, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.thedailystar.net/2006/08/30/d60830020327.htm. As a copyright violation, 1953 Anti-Ahmadiyya Movement appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. 1953 Anti-Ahmadiyya Movement has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:1953 Anti-Ahmadiyya Movement and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:1953 Anti-Ahmadiyya Movement with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:1953 Anti-Ahmadiyya Movement.

However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. — coel acan — 18:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No personal Attacks

I believed it was being referenced to Nobel prize as general not specially in Physics, as clear by my ref to List_of_Muslim_Nobel_laureates. However I would like you to not make personal attacks in summary as you did here. In fact it is prejudice on your part to assume I am Sunni or did this in bad faith. Please refrain from personal attacks or you will be reported (again). --Webkami 15:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block

For making derogatory remarks and hate speech here, I have blocked you for 24 hours. Please refrain from making such remarks against other religions or ethnic groups. Thank you. --Ragib 19:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But these are the facts and the whole world knows it. Just because you are Sunni doesn't mean you should try to suppress factual comments about your extremist religion. What do you think this war on terror is all about? Who do you think bombed WTC? Who bombed London on 7/7? All Sunnis. Who carried out all those bombing campaign in Bangladesh killing lots of innocent people? All Sunnis. Who is doing all those suicide bombings in Pakistan? All Sunnis. So what is your problem? Why are you so subversive to facts? I thought wiki was all about facts and not POV. May be you should try to do something to fix your religion of hate rather than trying to suppress facts. The facts that everyone knows anyway and your effort is futile. Come out of this Ostrich mentality. You are not fooling anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya01 (talk • contribs)

I have extended your block for hate speech directed at other users. Thank you. --Ragib 03:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hateful extremist Sunni religion followers now terrorising on the Internet. Has anyone seen a good Sunni ever, or seen a good thing coming from a Sunni? Only hate. Sunnis hate Shias, Sunnis hate Ahmadis, Sunnis hate Christians, Sunnis hate Hindus, Sunnis hate their own women and treat them like rubbish.

Thanks Ragib for your rightful action. --Webkami 18:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further remarks like above will only result in a much longer block. This is your only warning. --Ragib 00:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I said is for a fact. I don't know why you are taking it so personally. If you are so ashamed of your Sunni religion may be you should change?

Revision as of 00:13, 30 April 2007 edit Gallileo2k (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 29,065 edits →Block: further racist remarks will result in longer and longer blocks ← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:00, 30 April 2007 edit undo Yahya01 (talk \| contribs) 589 edits →Block Next edit →
Line 133:		Line 133:

	Further remarks like above will only result in a much longer block. This is your only warning. --[[User:Ragib\|Ragib]] 00:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)		Further remarks like above will only result in a much longer block. This is your only warning. --[[User:Ragib\|Ragib]] 00:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

			:Everything I said is for a fact. I don't know why you are taking it so personally. If you are so ashamed of your Sunni religion may be you should change?