User talk:Funnypop12

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Gwernol 21:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank or remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Muhammad, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Gwernol 02:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"Funnypop12," I recommend you stop.Proabivouac 05:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Frotz661 07:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing picture from Muhammad article is NOT Vandalism. It is very disputed to put Muhammad pictures in that article and very disputed to do that. Those who are putting back the picture are equal vandal as those who are removing it. --- ALM 14:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not against any Wikipedia policy that I can see. Content is agreed through consensus. When content is removed with incorrect or no edit summaries e.g. then that isn't very nice. If content is added back and it is from a verifiable and notable sources then that is not vandalism. To refute the providence of the pictures you need to provide evidence that these picture are not authentic. A quick read of the background on e.g. (Image:Miraj2.jpg)  does have providence and is in a style consistent with the dictates of the faith i.e. covered face. It was painted as far as I can be seen by Sultan Muhammad (we need an article on him here) between the dates 1539–43 when he worked on the Khamseh of Nezami. It seems that he subsequently slowed or stopped painting as he felt it was irreligious. I feel confident that this work has reasonably good providence to be suitable for inclusion. Ttiotsw 08:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing Muhammad pics
I appreciate your removing of those pics. These are aligned with the policy of wikipedia and had been massively discussed over and over again on Muhammad talk page. However, please use edit summaries properly and also beware of WP:3RR violation. Those who are putting back the pics are doing the same kind of act as those who are removing them because there is no consensus in each side. I was part of mediation on the pics on Muhammad article but our mediator retired in the middle of mediation. We will start a new mediation soon and I will invite you to contribute and give your view. Btw welcome in wikipedia and continue contributing in such a good way. --- ALM 14:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, I disagree with ALM. It is not the case that these removals can be considered in line with Wikipedia policies. The relevant policy is that Wikipedia is not censored to protect the religious (or otherwise) sensitivities of any particular group. Adding informative and relevant content to an article is certainly not the same as removing it. Please stop removing content from articles without justification or explanation as you did to Isra and Mi'raj. Thanks, Gwernol 19:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There is lot of discussion going on that it is Not allied with not censored because we are not sure that how informative the material is? If those pics are even informative at all or not. Or if those pics are placed there only to tease Muslim instead of improving contents. That why we had been in mediation Talk:Muhammad/Mediation for a while. Hence in this situation where there are TWO group of opinions, removing is as bad as adding back. Obviously I support having edit summaries and discussion. However, punishing the one who delete and rewarding the one who add extremely controversial (non-informative) material is not align with any wikipedia policy. --- ALM 15:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Persian Kings
Please answer your logic on Muhammad talk page Here. Thank you. --- ALM 18:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit-summaries
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this: The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  11:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Please stop. If you continue to remove content from pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Strothra 18:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please talk to others
[] You will be block soon. I think it is better idea to talk with others instead of reverting without talking. You might have right point of view but no one will know about it until you will talk to others. Hence two golden rules 1) Talk to others 2) use edit summaries. --- ALM 18:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for vandalism of Muhammad
You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia  as a result of your . You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. Sandstein 08:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Attn reviewing admin: Funnypop12 has never added anything (let alone "good information") to Muhammad/Muhammad/images, and has hardly ever engaged in discussion. On the few occasions (after many warnings) that he's posted on talk, it's been only semi-coherent and using language which suggests him to be a competent speaker of English feigning the confusion of a good-faith third-world contributor. His username and associated "real-world identity" are cribbed froma Pakistani web forum at the expense of an unwitting real-world individual. It's true that he's been allowed to get away with this behavior, as he says, for "so long," but that's to our discredit, not to his credit. In light of all contributions, this obvious sockpuppet should not be unblocked, but indef blocked. If he has something to say, let him say it with his main account in a natural voice (that is, supposing it is not banned.)Proabivouac 11:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

thats unfair. Very unfairFunnypop12 11:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfair to whom? It's obvious that you're a good deal smarter than the average administrator. Policy aside, in truth you have by now every right to adopt a contemptuous attitude re the intelligence and competence of your fellow Wikipedians.
 * "I am Basit. My field is Engineering, Science and techonology, history, archeology and religion."
 * That's all? Well, as you may know by now, most of us have several (at least) advanced degrees! In your case, contributions make such claims all the more credible: can we expect anything less from a multi-talented autodidact then to repeatedly blank depictions of Muhammad?Proabivouac 11:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I wish that this matter be handled by some neutral admin that is not involved in pushing picture on the top of page. Secondly, if he is a socket puppet then do ban him for indef. However, if he is not a socket puppet then ban one who is accusing him (User:Proabivouac). Just like admin blocking you in non-neutral (supporting picture and banning you) and so is the one who is admin listening to Proabivouac. I know that the admin even has not warn Mr. Proabivouac for making personal attacks against you. Here is what I have copied from your user page (which is surely a Vandalism and personal attack but not warned.)

Removing Muhammad pics again
If you blank the pictures against consensus again as you did here it will be grounds for blocking. You have been warned about this in the past. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked - persistent removal of sourced content
You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia  as a result of your . You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. --  FayssalF  - Wiki me up ®  17:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably of little concern
I've indefinitely blocked this account because you've moved on to User:Ramzk001 by all evidence - there's no legitimate reason why you should have (at least) three accounts to do the same thing. You can reply here if you want to contest this, I'll take a look. Cheers, Wily D 13:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)