User talk:DrAlyLakhani

Welcome!
Hello, DrAlyLakhani, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! --Toddy1 (talk) 06:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Warnings
 Note: Always remember to substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings. Older warnings may have been removed, but are still visible in the [ page history]. [Admin: block | [ unblock] / Info: contribs | [ page moves] | [ block log] | [ block list]]

March 2012
Thank you for your interest in editing Wikipedia. Your edit to Yazid I was successful, but because it was not considered beneficial to the page, the edit has been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment with editing, please use the sandbox instead. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Yazid I with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. NTox · talk 06:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Hind bint Utbah appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this. Thank you.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in editing Wikipedia. Your edit to Muawiyah I was successful, but because it was not considered beneficial to the page, the edit has been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment with editing, please use the sandbox instead. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Hasan ibn Ali appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this. Thank you.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. NTox · talk 06:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

May 2012
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 Muhammad, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use your 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. Singularity42 (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Muhammad shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. S Æ don talk 02:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe your eyes are so good that they can read information this small. but English language Wikipedia is written for a full range of normal people. Many normal people find text this small hard to read. That was why I reverted your change to the article on Hasan ibn Ali and why (when you reverted me) I rolled it back. Forcing people to read unreadably small text is unhelpful. So please stop making unhelpful changes to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for everyone, not just people with exceptional eyesight like yourself.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive751. Thank you. S Æ don talk 23:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Changes
Hi DrAlyLakhani, thank you for starting to use edit summaries and sourcing. What would be really nice is if you would start communicating with other editors both here on your talk page and on the talk pages of articles you edit. WP:DISCUSSION is a huge part of WP as a collaborative project. You should also read WP:BRD, which describes the bold-revert discuss cycle. In short, when you make a Bold edit, and someone Reverts you, the next step is to Discuss on the article's talk page. Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions or further inquiry, you can leave a message on my talk or do so here. Alternatively you can add the template on your talk page and someone will stop by to assist. S Æ don talk 20:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Font size
The use of different font sizes is discouraged in the Manual of Style.

I accept that you can read smaller font sizes easily. But many Wikipedia editors can only read small font sizes with difficulty.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

My friend....
DrAlyLakhani, it is imperative that you communicate better with the other editors here. I appreciate you using edit summaries, this is a good start. Others have questions about your edits, and if you don't discuss, it looks like you are being disruptive or dismissive. I do not think you mean to be, but it does look this way to others. At Wikipedia, just like in your real life, you must talk to people so they understand what you are doing, discuss, and build together. It is a community, after all. It requires you make the effort to engage others here, and do so now. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;   &copy;  22:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your criticisms, and helping me get to know the rules of Wikipedia a bit better. I did not mean to ignore any of you, just that i just learned how to respond. Also Toddy1 did I not add citations? And I do not remember adding an entire book as a reference.--DrAlyLakhani 17:09, 8 May 2012‎.


 * I would suggest holding off on adding more content until you spend a day or two addressing the concerns that others are expressing. As Toddy1 is more familiar, I would ask him to help you with this.  I know you are not meaning to, but adding all this material improperly causes problems and other editors are complaining, so please work with Toddy first.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  19:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If you have read Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive751, you will know that my belief is that if you "could be persuaded to provide citations to proper sources, it would make the articles better" than the are now.


 * Here is an example of you adding an entire book as a reference to the article on the Battle of Siffin:
 * Hearing the news of the advance of the Syrian army, Ali appointed Aqaba ibn Amr Ansari as governor of Kufa, called Abdullah ibn Abbas from Basra to accompany him, and left Kufa with his army for Siffin in April 657. "Seventy veterans of the battle of Badr and 250 Companions of the Tree of Fealty marched under his flag with the army along the banks of the Euphrates toward Siffin.".
 * My belief is that you looked at sources before you edited that article. If we could persuade you to cite your edits better, I think your edits would improve the articles.  Many of the articles on the events in the Seventh Century are very badly cited - what we need is to improve these articles - with additions that are well cited.  If you look at the article on the Prince Consort class battleship you will see a model that might be helpful to you.  The article is built up out of small quotations and statements from sources, all quoting page numbers, etc.  Given that what you want to write is controversial - this approach would make your text very hard to argue against.


 * However you need to recognise that there are other versions of events and other points of view (POV). I know that you regard the family of Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib as the rightful caliphs.  Wikipedia is neutral on this.  The other point of view is also valid and must be fairly represented in articles.  Have you had a look at Neutral point of view?  I sometimes read it to remind myself of things.  I find it useful and thought-provoking.


 * Finally, when you write on talk pages, please sign them by clicking on the signature icon, or typing --~ You will see that I signed your previous comment on your behalf.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you know about sandboxes? You can create one by clicking on a wikilink like this: User:DrAlyLakhani/Sandbox1.  They can be useful places to build up text and check it works before pasting the text in articles.  You do not have to use them - but sometimes they are useful.  It also avoids the "thousands of edits" syndrome - where other editors panic a bit when they see a huge number of edits to an article by someone.  If you develop the edits in a sandbox, you can get things to a good standard before posting into the article.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Block
You have been blocked temporarily from editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC) Hi. You need to stop what you are doing, and address the problems that are being reported to you on both this page and here. That means please stop making disputed edits when you are reverted, and don't simply keep reverting back without comment discussion. This block is only a short one, and is intended to get your attention - I'm quite sure you mean well here, but we work in a collegial and interactive fashion here, and you cannot simply carry on ignoring everyone. So talk to us, please, here on this talk page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Little tips to make discussions easier to read and understand
Good indentation makes prolonged discussions easier to read and understand. It might be helpful to think of discussions as reports with numbered/bulleted sections and subsections where material is not necessarily written in chronological order. See also:
 * WP:CUSTOMSIG
 * Signatures must include at least one internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page; this allows other editors easy access to your talk page and contributions log. The lack of such a link is widely viewed as obstructive. If, while making modifications, you accidentally disable this link (which I think you did), click here. When you insert your signature on your talk page or user page, a link to that page will appear black, bold and inactive, so test your signature elsewhere, such as the Sandbox.
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: - Do not include links to external websites in your signature.
 * WP:INDENT Indentation_highlight.jpg
 * A reply should be placed beneath the original comment. The reply should be indented. To indent check your edit tool bar for a button like this → [[Image:Vector_toolbar_indentation_button.png|20px]].
 * If two replies are made to one specific comment, they should be at the same level of indentation with the later reply at the bottom.
 * A response to a reply should be placed below that reply, but above all later replies. The response should be indented relative to the adjacent replies.
 * A new comment or sub-thread that is being added after a number of replies should go at the bottom. Do not add a new comment or sub-thread where it will separate an earlier comment from its replies.

I hope this helps. Brendon is here  10:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Redirecting page Ibrahim
There is discussion in process for redirecting page Ibrahim to prophet Ibrahim page Abraham in Islam at Talk:Ibrahim page. Please see discussion at Talk:Abraham in Islam page also, where there is no agreement on including even name of Ibrahim in title of Abraham in Islam page which is special topic meant for Ibrahim. Now it is proposed that we may agree for redirecting at least, as Ibrahim is prime topic for prophet Ibrahim and he is religious, prominent figure of millions of Islam follower, who are in majority English knowing ( if not speaking) peoples. If you feel it is justified, Please help getting views for the people who may agree for this move.--Md iet (talk) 10:05, 29 January 2013 (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) 16:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)