User talk:Doug Weller: Difference between revisions

The current date and time is 20 September 2024 T 20:41 UTC.

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

home	Talk Page	Workshop	Site Map	Userboxes	Edits	Email

Coming here to ask why I reverted your edit? Read this page first...

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 66 Archive 67

This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

You can email me from this link but in the interests of Wiki-transparency, please message me on this page unless there are pressing reasons to do otherwise. Comments which I find to be uncivil, full of vulgarities, flame baiting, or that are excessively rude may be deleted without response. If I choose not to answer, that's my right; don't keep putting it back. I'll just delete and get annoyed at you.

Are you an wikipedia-employee??? If yes, Jimmy Wales must know about you. If no , what is ur authority to create absurd pages with wrong informations ?

I don't care about what you think , and i don't want people to get wrong informations. So,please co-operate.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Mirza Ghulam Ahmad you may be blocked from editing. The Vandalism on Mirza Ghulam Ahmad harm Wikipedia's reputation. We are not a religious organisation and hence accept all criticism of religion that referenced with appropriate sources. Fines may follow !

Sources here include:

• Quran
• Tirmidhi
• Maududi, Abul A'la (1993). Finality of Prophethood. Islamic Publications.
• Nadwi, Abul. Qadianism - A Critical Study. Islamic Research and Publications.
• Websites: like http://www.inter-islam.org/faith/qadian.htm
• Roohani Khazain by Mirza
• Tadhkirah by Mirza
• Mawahib-ur-Rahman
• Dawat-O-Irshad, USA

See WP:BP, WP:NOT, WP:VAN Adjutor101 (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We at Wikipedia take Vandalism Adjutor101 (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller, I don't really agree with his edits either, they are pretty promotional(to a specific ideology) and purely polemic. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adjutor101 has recently added that whole again. Citations are still not reliable enough. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul's page is a lightening rod for attacks because of only one book he wrote on the Theosophy Masters. Most of his work does not involve the Theosophical Society's Masters. If his Page is to stay, it should be balanced out to reflect all his works. The majority of his work has been after his brief period with the TS (late 1990's). The theosophy stuff is minor except for a very vocal group of people who attack him. The page should actually be deleted in my opinion. JEMead (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do I delete his page? JEMead (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Until we get an afd up,I don't see one yet, can I revert your reversion? I don't want a reversion war. JEMead (talk) 04:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goldstone, Nancy (2007). Four Queens: The Provençal Sisters who ruled Europe. New York: Viking Penguin. ISBN 9780670038435.
I get the distinct impression this is a "popular" history, not a serious academic work. Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kansas Bear: Looking at her bio, I'd agree. But the acid test is looking in Google Books and Google Scholar to see if she's cited and by whom. Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Found it mentioned(Cornell University Press), and it states that Goldstone's work is simply popular history.[1] I did not find it used as a source in any academic works. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have a new editor who apparently thinks primary sources lifted from Peter Kirby's website are sufficient for a newly created article on the Book of Elchasai. My talk page explanations pointing to WP:PSTS, WP:V and WP:RS have gone unheeded, and the editor just removed a tag I placed to improve the article. Can you please look into this? Ignocrates (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I brought the matter of reliable sources to RSN. The conduct issue is still unresolved. Stripping off refimprove tags and claiming they are a violation of WP policy is not a good predictor of constructive editing. Ignocrates (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Busy day in real life and still quite a bit to do, sorry. Will try to take a look sometime. Dougweller (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rush. The article will receive comments at RSN for a few days before any decisions are made. It appears to have been added directly to mainspace without going through the WP:AFC process for a preliminary review. I thought we didn't do that sort of thing anymore. Ignocrates (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is going from bad to worse. Now there is a link to www.newadvent.org, making it non-NPOV as well as non-RS. Don't we have tutorials somewhere to minimize these kinds of rookie mistakes? Ignocrates (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your note on the article talk page. The link to NewAdvent should go for the same reason, and it also creates an NPOV problem. Ian.thomson provided ample secondary and tertiary sources to improve the article on the talk page, so RSN did its job as far as I'm concerned. The bigger issue is that the article was never properly reviewed before it was added to mainspace. It has less content and poorer sourcing than the parent Elcesaites article, so it shouldn't have been created as a spin-out (the Book of Elchesai link is a redirect). Therefore, it's not ready for prime-time, and could be (and probably should be) moved to AFC space or the author's userspace. Meanwhile, I'm going to put the tags back in good faith to encourage other editors to improve it using the sources Ian provided. Ignocrates (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bfpage came to the rescue with some additional content and sources, so I'm dropping the stick on this one. It's more consistent now with the general level of quality in the category. Ignocrates (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I saw that, taking it off my huge watchlist now. Trying to cut down on numbers and do more editing. Dougweller (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know that the military infobox was there probably since this page was written for the first time. Was there ever any discussion about removing it before? Bladesmulti (talk) 10:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other pages like Battle of Siddim, Battle of Banquan have also used military infobox. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Dougweller:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Auric talk 12:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Dougweller:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Hi, Doug -- I just made a minor edit to Ancient history to make a sentence more concise (and fix punctuation), but I still wonder if the sentence could be further improved. It is the sole sentence in the third paragraph of the lead:

"In India, the period includes the early period of the Middle Kingdoms, and, in China, the time up to the Qin Dynasty.

I'm wondering if there is a way to avoid using the word "period" twice in the sentence. Can you think of a word that would work in place of one of them, but preserving the correct meaning? CorinneSD (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CorinneSD: "In India, ancient history includes the early period". Sorry not to reply earlier, just too busy. Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Recently, you reverted an edit I made to the Prehistory of Australia article. I had replaced the phrase "earliest ancestors of the Aboriginals" with "earliest inhabitants of Australia." I made this change as a clarification to signify the distinction between these two concepts as the identification of the earliest Australian migrants as ancestors of modern Aboriginals remains a matter of scholarly discussion: a moot point, as they say. From the context it seemed likely to me that the paragraph was definitely discussing the earliest occupation of Australia. What were your reasons for reverting my change? Ordinary Person (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ordinary Person:I see no evidence of it being a moot point. Maybe it is, but History of Indigenous Australians, History of Australia, Aboriginal Australians and the article in question don't suggest that to be the case. Dougweller (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this response. I'll get my thoughts and sources together. It is possible that it might be best dealt with by leaving the text as you have left it and including a footnote discussing the matter I've mentioned. Ordinary Person (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, consider for instance the article on Lake Mungo remains. These are probably the oldest human remains in Australia, and, as the article indicates, DNA evidence suggests they are not related to modern aboriginal Australians. I'll pop a couple of sentences in the Prehistory of Australia article about this.Ordinary Person (talk) 04:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I had a go. I'm not sure that the format I've used is correct, as I just want to provide a sidenote. Now that I come to think of it, the previous version "There is considerable archeological discussion as to the route taken by the first ancestors of the Aborigines" is clearly not correct when taken literally, as there were ancestors of the Aborigines living in Africa millions of years ago. The first migrants to Australia might well be among the ancestors of Aborigines but they are certainly not the first ancestors of Aborigines. My revised version says "the first migrants to Australia, widely taken to be ancestors of the modern Aborigines".Ordinary Person (talk) 05:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work there User:Ordinary Person. That's fine. I can see that the Lake Mungo remains are pretty controversial, not surprisingly. Dougweller (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Dougweller:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

my user page go deleted. why? JEMead (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC) sorry - it reappeared. hmmm JEMead (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug. A while back you indicated you'd support my admin nomination. [2] Do you still feel this way and if so, would you be willing to put forth the nomination? Please be aware that I haven't written any articles and that I focus on maintenance and assisting other editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably support. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have my support too. I haven't researched what you do the rest of the time, but whenever you are on my watchlist your edits are well-considered and welcome. All the best. Abecedare (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to - I obviously need to look at your edits, talk page etc to decide what to say. It may take me a few days. I'm out all day Saturday at an archaeology conference but will hopefully start tomorrow. Dougweller (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks. I'll be busy with work the rest of the week and was going to ask you to hold off the nom until next week if you agreed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, how the creation of "Criticism of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad" be WP:CONTENTFORK because we have article Jesus and Criticism of Jesus, article Muhammad and Criticism of Muhammad on Wikipedia. Please reply..... Thanks. Night Fury (talk) 08:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that those two are considered to be much more important historically and of course the material in those has been accumulating for over 2000 years in the case of Jesus, not quite that long for Muhammad. Maybe in a thousand years? The fact that we have a few articles like that isn't justification for just any article. That's beside the fact that Adjutor101 couldn't possibly write one following our guidelines and policies - he has demonstrated that he can't work with others which has led to his long block. Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Traditional marriage. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what are we going to do about this PI, 81.155.210.131 ? He's over 3RR today, and about half-a-dozen-RR for the last few days. I'm at 2RR myself, so I can't do anything about his latest revert. I'm going to put an edit warring template on his talk page, which he'll ignore. Is it too early to request administrative help? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 02:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind -- Materialscientist is way ahead of me, and he's already blocked for vandalism/edit warring. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 02:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DoctorJoeE: probably because of my report at AIV:[3] - I was too involved to block. Dougweller (talk) 09:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aha -- another senior moment for me, I didn't realize you were an admin. I notice that all of the people who object to labeling Mullins an antisemite have never actually read any of his books, since Mullins himself never denied that he was antisemitic, and actually seemed proud of it at times. I also notice -- not that this is any sort of brilliant insight -- that dismissal of all WP:RS as "Zionist propaganda" is a pretty obvious red flag. Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 12:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another revert this morning,[4] this time from 81.155.209.224, who is probably a sock evading the block, since the IP geolocates to the exact same place in central England. I'm not familiar enough with the technical details to know if that's sufficient proof to extend the block, or whatever. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 19:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I posted to the blocking editor. IP hoppers are a pain, but the Mullins article has pending changes now anyway. Dougweller (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dougweller:, First thank-you for intervening at Talk:ISIL with your citation of WP:LEAD. That was very timely and appreciated.

I am very concerned about the exertion of pressures on the article from outside influences. If it came to a WP:Vote, it wouldn't take much for members of an outside Cabal, whether in coordination or not, to become involved and present the group look like Disney. I was wondering whether any mechanisms could operate by which key decisions could be addressed via an independent decision making process or whether outside interventions might beneficially be brought into play. One of the big issues that has been in the news has been Islamic criticism of ISIL and yet reference to this criticism has been surreptitiously edit warred out of the lead which only came to light late on in a discussion as to whether to put it back. I was wondering whether a mechanism in something like village pump might be used to address various issues. Any help or advice that you can give will be appreciated. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC) @Gregkay: If that happens we can sort it. We don't have any mechanism such as you suggest nor are we likely to agree to one. We don't vote anyway, it's the weight of policy and guidelines that should determine most things. We've got WP:NPOV for instance. A lot of people don't know about WP:LEAD. Dougweller (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Dougweller Thanks, and to an extent that's quite reassuring. It would be nice if all editors had to register and even give statements regarding background. There can be a lack of openness. (See: Talk:ISIL#Israel should be added to the opponents' list). I also wish I had known about WP:BEGIN earlier :) Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GregkayeThat's never going to happen for a number of reasons, and the bad guys would lie anyway. Dougweller (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases this may be apparent. However some people manipulate, pressure and spin but don't overtly lie but, admittedly, I maybe taking the giving of the benefit of doubt too far. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 08:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dougweller (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug. It has been my understanding that with some common sense exceptions, local elections are not usually notable per WP:EVENTCRIT. However that understanding has been challenged (1) (2). I dropped a note on the editor's talk page, which has not yet gotten a reply (s/he may be just be busy). In any event I am leaning towards sending them to AfD but wanted to get a second opinion first.

@Ad Orientem: WP:GNG still applies. If it fails that, take it to AfD and let me know. Dougweller (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I think that perhaps this question needs to be discussed a bit more broadly as there appear to be a lot of articles on purely local elections floating around. To which end I have asked for community input at Wikipedia talk:Notability (events). I have a feeling that the answer is going to be that local elections will normally be notable if GNG is the main criteria. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources provided in the section say that the Dungan and Panthay Revolts happened because they were Muslims or that the revolt was due to religion. It is exactly because on the contrary, sources say that they had little to do with religion that the section should be largely deleted with all the material on the Dungan and Panthay Revolts cleared out. Nowhere does it say the Qing persecuted Muslims because they were Muslims. And in addition to that, the paragraph on Uyghurs says its ethnic persecution, it doesn't say Uyghurs were targeted for being Muslims but that they are targeted for being Uyghur. This would go into a racism and not a religious persecution for being Muslim article. That means the entire section needs deletion. And also the material on Tibet explicitly mentioned Islam as a religion (Tibetans claiming alleged Islamic proselytizing by serving Tibetans the cremated ash of Imams) as a reason for Tibetan attacks and hostility to Islam.Rajmaan (talk) 03:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But also, opposing points of views on a subject are valid material to be included in an article. If material which just says that the Qing or government treated people of xx religion nicely and says nothing about persecution then I understand that it is off topic and should be deleted. But the material doesn't just say that, it explicitly mentions the premise of persecuting or fighting because of religion, and then explicitly rejects and criticizes that premise as a reason for the conflict. Both sides of a debate and their point of view should be included if one point of view is also centered around criticizing the opposing point of view. If a reliable source explicitly says that something did not happen and was noticeable for that fact, it is valid material for inclusion. A made up analogy is if there were two articles published about Iraq in two newspapers- one article says that the new interim Iraqi government rejected a contract by Haliburton or some American oil company to drill for oil and signed an agreement with another foreign company instead. It says nothing else. Someone tries putting that into the Iraq War article and uses is as a reference to claim that America did not invade Iraq because of oil. It gets rightfully deleted because the article says nothing about the Iraq War. However, an article in another newspaper mentions the rejected contract and says that the Iraqi government is not being forced by American forces stationed in Iraq to sign it so America did not enter the war for oil but instead did it for other reasons. That can be used as a valid source in the Iraq War article on the criticism section to add another opposing viewpoint. Criticism of an article's topic is valid, that's why many articles have criticism sections on their topics with reliable sources. What I added is sourced criticism of the topic

Also the Syrian section has absolutely nothing to do with persecution of Muslims and needs to be deleted entirely too.Rajmaan (talk) 03:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some information on there is patently irrelevant and wrong, Linxia, not Xi'an, was the most important city for Hui Muslims and in fact the Hui Muslim community in Xi'an survived the war intact while other communities in Shaanxi did not so there is no reason for this sentence - "Xi'an, the capital of Shaanxi province, was the Holy city of Dungan (Hui) in China before the revolt. "Rajmaan (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you reverted user:thismightbezach edits to Killing Jesus. He is making similar edits (deleting critical reviews) to Killing Patton, also by Bill O'Reilly. Thanks. user:Jimintheatl

User:Jiminheat1 watching but MotherJones probably not good source for a BLP. Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to the "Killing Patton" page, not the Bill O'Reilly page. Thanks. Jimintheatl The same user you reverted for his partisan edit to Bill O'Reilly's "Killing Jesus" is now trying to include promotional materials from O'Reilly's website for his latest book "Killing Patton." This is clearly inappropriate. Thanks.--Jimintheatl

I'm only keeping the article fair and neutral. An author's response to criticism is not inappropriate; it's also included in the Killing Lincoln article. I've tried to talk with Jimintheatl, but he keeps blanking his page. He's not interested in having an open dialogue. Thismightbezach (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the proper newspeak for "sanitised of critical opinions" was "Fair and Balanced"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! Dougweller (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to know why the Rasta movement was deleted and what was the statement that made no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.90.95 (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, the 'Establishment' section of this article is directly copied from [5], an IP editor removed all the content but i reverted him because i thought he is removing content without specific reason but it is actually copy pasted from the link above. Please take care of the matter. thanks Night Fury (talk) 11:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the material. It was a blatant copyright infringement and have left a note with the details at Talk:Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission. Night Fury, I'm sure it was an honest mistake on your part but the IP left a clear edit summary explaining the removal and provided a link to the page which had been copied. When using automated tools, it is very important that you actually read the edit summary carefully before reverting. Voceditenore (talk) 11:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Voceditenore: this is actually a confusing area. Time and again I see people copy/pasting from Indian government websites and the argument often is that government-published material is public domain under Indian law. Contrary to that, a fair few of those government websites do carry a copyright notice. Most Indian government websites are hosted and/or designed by the National Informatics Centre (NIC).

Personally, I'm opposed to copy/pasting stuff regardless of whether it is PD or not, and regardless of origin, but some sort of clarification of the situation regarding Indian government material might be useful. - Sitush (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sitush. The NIC websites with the .gov.in extension do not have a compatible license for copying onto Wikipedia. Not only do they not allow reproduction without first obtaining permission by email, they never give permission for the quoted text to be altered. See here. So no, unless an individual .gov.in page carries an explicitly displayed license of public domain or cc-by-SA, they cannot be copied verbatim. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also Copyright law of India. The only "government works" not subject to copyright are these. Voceditenore (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was just reading our article, not that I would rely on it! Your link to the NIC guidance makes the situation very clear, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it's accurate, Sitush. Commons:Copyright rules by territory/India-table has pretty much the same thing. Speaking of which, Doug, good job on the stubbing. Both of the images in that article were copyvios as well. I've nominated them for deletion at Commons. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Voceditenore: and @Sitush:Thanks guys for your help, every time i make mistakes, i learn many new things. I will take care of the thing in future. Night Fury (talk) 14:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Ahmed Hassan Imran and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, BengaliHindu (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]