User talk:Code16

Talkback
Faizan (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Non-denomenational Muslim
I invite you to Talk:Non-denominational Muslim where a discussion about the speedy delelition of the article has been started. Your point of view will be much appreciated! Septate (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Mediation Request
Hello.I am afraid that I will not be able to help with your request as I am no expert in Islamic theology and therefore have no way to confirm the reliability of the sources.--Catlemur (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * No worries, thanks for responding in any case. c Ө de1+6  LogicBomb!  18:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hadith and criticism thereof
I'm completely unfamiliar with the hadith; I know what they are, but that's it. As such, I don't think my input would be helpful. I skimmed the discussion and saw nothing obviously untoward (it appears to be just the content dispute that you described, not something with someone misusing sources or doing other fundamentally problematic stuff), and the only obvious problem with the articles (aside from minor stuff, like punctuation and slightly odd wording) is that big chunks of Criticism of Hadith are present in Hadith, which is normally not a good idea because when we've chopped out a chunk of an article for it to stand separately, the remaining part in the main article should be a summary, not merely reproducing a part of the new article and largely ignoring the rest. Nyttend (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input, yes I agree that the content the summarization should be done better in these cases where the articles split off into branches. I've tried to follow another user's advise on this when doing it most recently for the authenticity section. c Ө de1+6  LogicBomb!  22:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hadith and Criticism of Hadith
Hi, got your message - there is one (enormous) problem: I know next to nothing about the subject. If it was solely a grammar or copy edit problem, then I could possibly help. Sorry I can't be of more assistance to you, I hope you can reach an agreeable solution. Best regards Denisarona (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Islam Talk Page
Sorry to bother, I think the Islam article has a lot of poor editing put in by anyone with an axe to grind and needs a lot of cleaning up. I am trying to do that but am in a little trouble by editors who get scared by the red negative sign of the history page showing net negative reduction in the article. If you do not mind, could we get your input on the talk page since you seem to be involved with the article before? Sodicadl (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Sodicadl, sorry I was on vacation. Will try and take a look and contribute. c Ө de1+6 TP  00:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You've been warned for edit warring at Criticism of Hadith per Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. You are risking a block if you revert again at that article before Feb. 1st, per the terms explained in the report. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * sir, consensus has been achieved at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Criticism_of_Hadith#Hallaq.27s_condensing . c Ө de1+6 TP  01:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Has anyone on the talk page said that they support your change? Absence of comments by others doesn't prove much. EdJohnston (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, ok no worries, I'll keep waiting.... But if there's no one arguing the other side then... what do I do? c Ө de1+6 TP  03:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A number of people have previously commented on Talk. You could ping them: User:HyperGaruda, User:FreeatlastChitchat and User:Thincat. You could ask them to take a look at Talk:Criticism of Hadith. There has been some talk about fringe issues. Though I haven't checked your new argument I hope you are prepared to answer that concern. I actually can't tell if you are proposing some new text for the article. It might help to clarify what words you want to add. EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Will do sir, but if you read my last comment on 19th Jan, (and the sourced paper) it's obvious that the other user simply misunderstood what the paper was about. But I'll ping everyone just in case. c Ө de1+6 TP  12:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * p.s. The "fringe" issue was actually the misunderstanding on the other user's part, and also I'm not proposing new content, but re-adding content that was unduly subtracted, because the user thought it was fringe, when it wasn't. I've explained the details in my last comment. c Ө de1+6 TP  13:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

IQ
I would appreciate your comment here.--Victor Chmara (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Code16, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Kalabagh Dam has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Article deletion nominations
You are invited to participate at the deletion nominations for India and state-sponsored terrorism and 2016 Indian military raid in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Thanks. Filpro (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've voted on both. c Ө de1+6 TP  23:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

About page assessment
As per your request, Ive completed the assessment of the article Ideas of Ghulam Ahmed Pervez, and rated it. - Ascetic Rosé   01:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Mridu Rai
Hi Code16. Following your email request, I have created the subpage User:Code16/Mridu Rai with the content of the deleted article. Note that this article had been deleted on January 24, 2018 by User:Anthony Bradbury for the following reason: G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (Mfarazbaig) in violation of ban or block. This material can serve as the basis of a new article that you can create if you think it is appropriate. Olivier (talk) 07:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

February 2019
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  08:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

This user conspired with others in a scheme to frame editors for sockpuppetry. The nationalistic edit warring has gotten out of hand and the banhammer is going to start falling more readily on POV warriors and schemers. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  08:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)