User talk:Karim Abdul Rashid

Welcome[edit]

Welcome! Hello, Karim Abdul Rashid, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Take a look at the Wikipedia:Cheatsheet and you'll get started in no time! Here are some other pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~) ; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you're using a shared computer consider making an account so you have more control over your contributions and talk page messages. If 'you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there or contact me on my talk page Again, welcome! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Babel[edit]

Hi there Karim. Could we please talk about the height issue at the Babel talk page? I suppose it was you editing as an IP address before? I'd be very happy to resolve this situation! Take care. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Karim, I found the height you mentioned from the Ajax website[1] and it does confuse things. I think the most important sources are the Liverpool FC and Ajax sources, as they actually measure the player when they arrive. Eurosport, and similar sources, are not the best because who knows where they get the information from! I understand your viewpoint about the 1.85m. Personally, I would prefer the Liverpool source because this is the most recent source we have but I am unsure. What do you think? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Liverpool site is the only usable one, apart possibly from the Netherlands FA site. Ajax was several years ago, and at his age it is possible he has grown. Eurosport etc aren't reliable as SFB reasons above. The player's own website has to be considered a primary source, and so should be avoided if there are other sources avaiable. He could say he was any height he wanted. --Ged UK (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is that it seems strange that he has shrunk since his Ajax days. I just don't know what to think his height is now. So, as long as it's cited with the correct Liverpool/Ajax source I couldn't really care which height the infobox says. I feel I've spent far too long discussing this minor point. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if he's shrunk then, it's most likely just down to conversion between Cm and ft and in. The LFC one is te most recent, and we should just stick with that, and that's feet and inches. I also really don't want to get bogged down in this either! --Ged UK (talk) 10:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is the liverpool height. Please do NOT change this again, or i will be forced to consider it vandalism, and report you. --Ged UK (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. I have now reported you for vandalism. Please use the article talk page to discuss. --Ged UK (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I request you to unblock my account !!! Here is my reason for editing Ryan Babel Height:Everytime when I visit his page it apears to have a 1,83 m height that is a uncorrect information and I don't wanna see it.I cannot agree for a consensus with Ged UK and I want a user that is understanding when I tell him and I give him prooves that Ryan Babel Height is 1,85 m .Not Ged UK who is not understanding.He deserve to be blocked not me ,because is fooling the people that are visiting that page with that uncorrect height!

I tell you that I can create a new account that it will be perfectly functional and I can edit imediatly what I want.But I don't want to do so because I want to demonstrate you that I'm not a vandal.I want you to understand my reason and unblock me once and for all ,or I will be forced to do what I said ...

Threatening sockpuppetry will not get you unblocked by anyone. It will just get the sock account blocked indefinitely (in other words, forever) and you will be blocked for longer. And if you keep it up, very soon you will be blocked indefinitely.

I think at this point you should strongly consider whether you can work well in a project with others, where you won't get your way just by pushing hardest and have to accept that results will sometimes go against you. If you can't, then you should really just leave Wikipedia alone and spare yourself and us a lot of grief. Daniel Case (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karim, in response to your lengthy message on my talk page, please review once again the discussion above the block notices. Ged and Sillyfolkboy are applying our reliable sources policy correctly. Whatever Ryan's own website says, it is still a primary source and loses when it's up against two more reliable secondary ones. What other-language Wikipedias say makes no difference to how we apply it here. Perhaps you could write to his webmaster and see if there's some reason for this confusion? It would be more productive than complaining here all the time. Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to any reviewing admin from blocking admin[edit]

So you won't have to put it on hold and contact me.

WP:NOTTHEM aside, the discussion on which this was based had two other users agreeing that the two reliable sources which gave the 6'0" height were to be preferred over the two that give 6'1". It was all done entirely per our policies on such matters, and KAR here then chose to completely ignore the result because, as his unblock request and followup comment make clear, he didn't get his way and can't live with that. Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Ben arfa OM.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Ben arfa OM.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the description and source information you gave for File:Ben arfa OM.jpg, if you found it on a website, it is most likely copyrighted and cannot be used on Wikipedia. Where exactly did you find it? All images are copyrighted, even if there is no copyright disclaimer, unless the copyright holder explicitly releases it. --Mosmof (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It helps if you remember where you found the image, but chances are, it's not free. Pretty much all images you find on club sites and newspapers are copyrighted, and even amateur photographs are not copyright free unless the owner specifically allows free use. --Mosmof (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Michel bastos.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Michel bastos.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011[edit]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Lionel Messi. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Entry contradicted published sources. Alexf^(talk) 17:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]