User talk:HafizHanif

Re: Boyd Bushman Entry Deleted
I kind of expected it. Wikipedia tends to censor some areas. For the longest time it censored most criticism of Israel. But that has changed over time. I no longer stress over it. It is a societal thing, more than a Wikipedia thing. Closed-minded morons exist on Wikipedia. Over time they disappear and they get outnumbered eventually. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate what you say, very true. Regarding Zionism, I find the documentary American Radical by Norman Finkelstein to be quit precise. It shouldn't be a majority rule / vote on a space like this, for who is expert in all topics encyclopedic? If you do have a moment, even a blurb pointing to Boyd's career and weight as a scientist would be appreciated. Thanks :)  --HafizHanif (talk) 05:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I saved copies of the Boyd Bushman article and talk page in their last states. I saved both the web page versions and the wikitext versions. If you need them for further work I can copy them to one of my sandboxes, and you can then copy them, and do whatever you want with them. You could even put them on one of the wiki farms like Wikia or Shoutwiki. I have wikis on both. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Timeshifter talk, would they come up in a Boyd Bushman internet search? It would be great if they did.  I'd like to contribute any way I can.  I've searched the internet for some substantial RS on him / his work, and what I've found to be of any somewhat significance so far is what I've shared at your talk page.  --HafizHanif (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If the info is posted on the internet, Google will usually find it. I haven't posted any of it anywhere other than on the article talk page and the AfD discussion. Google may or may not find the info on the AfD page since there may be a bot exclusion rule on those pages. Stuff posted on user talk pages is lost in the mix since they are not pages dedicated to a specific topic, and usually get deleted after awhile, or archived with other talk page stuff. There are lots of free web hosting sites where one could dedicate a page to Boyd Bushman. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Concerning patents, this is interesting. Another way to disappear some of this knowledge:
 * https://www.yahoo.com/tech/the-u-s-government-has-a-secret-system-for-104249688314.html --Timeshifter (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not surprised, Timeshifter (talk). These two quotes are my favorite:
 * “The Patent Office is kind of a funny place,” Franklin said. “We have this manual of patenting examining procedure, and it’s 1,500 pages long. They tell us everything: all their criterion in excruciating detail. But there is no mention in this huge book of this SAWS program. It’s completely off the books.”
 * “It favors the entrenched incumbent in that space over the person with perhaps breakthrough technology.” --HafizHanif (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I heard about the article from one of the Disclosure Project mailing lists.
 * http://www.disclosureproject.org --Timeshifter (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Timeshifter (talk), do you suppose a retry of the Boyd article would fly a year after the fact? --HafizHanif (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Timeshifter (talk), do you suppose a retry of the Boyd article would fly two years after the fact? -- HafizHanif (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know. I won't be helping though. Working on other things. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Timeshifter (talk) I remember you mentioning you had saved the content. Would you mind posting that to my sandbox, please? -- HafizHanif (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Please link to an empty sandbox or user page. I have many user pages. See the bottom of this section: User:Timeshifter. The subpages show/hide section. You shouldn't keep controversial stuff on user pages as a means to go around Wikipedia deletions though. It may get deleted by admins. I store those pages off Wikipedia. I save the "edit" page especially. Since that is wikitext.


 * It looks like I missed a message to me from you from a year ago. Sorry about that. I probably did not see it due to all the weird, baffling changes in notifications that Wikipedia has been experimenting with over the years. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * HafizHanif. I don't see your sandbox link on your user page or your user talk page. I can see mine, but not yours. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Timeshifter (talk), sorry for the late response, I had no idea what you were talking about regarding links to what you shared... I couldn't find what you were pointing out. Here is my sandbox link. Thanks for reminding me about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HafizHanif/sandbox


 * HafizHanif. I added the article and talk page to your sandbox. My previous comments were referring to my many sandbox pages. None of my sandbox pages contain the Boyd Bushman article. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bucky Jonson
Hello HafizHanif,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Bucky Jonson for deletion, because it seems to be vandalism or a hoax.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. ubiquity (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry about this, Hafiz. I saw the page as it was originally (pretty sparse), saw the bit about "for the legume see...", which made me think it was a joke, clicked on the sole link, which didn't work, and that confirmed for me that it was a joke. I see now that you've got a perfectly decent page, and that you fixed the link. I removed the speedy tag. Again, sorry for my haste. Good luck with the article. ubiquity (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem ubiquity (talk, I appreciate your attention and assistance in keeping wiki clean and factual :) --HafizHanif (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

May be of interest
Thought you might be interested in this:
 * http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/01/08/do-mars-rover-photos-show-potential-signs-ancient-life

"Noffke's paper is the most carefully done analysis of the sort that I’ve seen, which is why it's the first of its kind published in Astrobiology."

There are many other articles discussing Noffke's paper. Some of them might be good references somewhere on Wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Very interesting how this world / life is, my friend Timeshifter (talk). Mankind has only scratched the surface of reality.  -- HafizHanif (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not know until now of this way of pinging someone by linking to their user name. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Cheers Timeshifter (talk)... and you're welcome, ;) I was perusing some images from Mars and the story you shared.  Considering what Boyd shared with us and the pace NASA moves with their 'discoveries,' it is like comparing graduate school and kindergarten.  I don't know about you, but I believe in God and I'm open to discovering all that He has created and allowed to happen.  Perhaps it is true that some folks would not be able to handle the thought of life on another planet, aliens from another galaxy or even a specie of creation existing on Mars prior to their extinction due to their collective arrogance and pride ( similar to the course of some influential people in humanity ). HafizHanif (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Once aliens are in the mix, and the paranormal, then all bets are off as to the nature of "reality". :) --Timeshifter (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * That's for sure Timeshifter (talk), lol. The perceived reality would soon be up for grabs once the dust settles from the coming cognitive dissonance.  Has the age old question "what came first; the chicken or the egg?" been succinctly answered?   HafizHanif (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * here's one I think you'll find interesting Timeshifter (talk: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/01/26/mysterious-radio-signal-from-space-caught-live-for-first-time/ --HafizHanif (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That one probably has an explanation other than from aliens. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * the truth is out there says this political official: http://news.yahoo.com/outgoing-obama-adviser-john-podesta-s-biggest-regret-of-2014--keeping-america-in-the-dark-about-ufos-234149498.html Timeshifter (talk. -- HafizHanif (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw that too. Disclosure is already happening in so many ways. Impossible to stop it now that we have the internet. More and more people with credentials are speaking out, and it all goes onto the internet where it can't be easily buried. There are various Youtube downloading addons for browsers, for example. So when a video gets deleted it often gets put back on the internet by somebody else. Videos of people speaking out. Not just UFO videos. They are easily photoshopped. But people with credentials can be very convincing. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Timeshifter (talk), the Blink 182 guy also mentioned something recently. The landslide will continue.  It will interesting to see exactly what will be 'officially' said and released when the elephant in the room cannot be ignored anymore.  -- HafizHanif (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Ten Measures from the Communist Manifesto
'''I'm adding my contribution of the ten measures here in my personal space since it was obstructed at the actual page. I have resolved not to further the effort:'''

Several authors and popular publications have used the ten measures in exploring the aims the Communist Manifesto expresses, and in helping define Communism, Socialism and Capitalism, as well as thoughts outside these sometimes polarizing labels.

Bertell Ollman, a teacher of dialectical methodology, socialist theory and an academic with several published works related to Marxist theory, says many people fear the thought of a future socialistic society, and this is their response to what the manifesto identifies. He calls this "political evasion." He explores the ten measures fully in order to demystify the points Marx and Engel were making in writing the manifesto.

The periodical Political Studies, released a 1969 article building from the ten measures in search of deriving contextual meaning. The article identifies Marx and Engel's analysis of the capitalistic economic structure of their time. It further explores the manner in which their political manifestations developed.

The Journal of Democracy cites the ten measures in full when referencing the efforts of the Portuguese Coup of 25 November 1975 immediately following the Carnation Revolution -- HafizHanif (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

- - - - -

Here is the previous conversation when I initially attempted to reinsert the ten measures, which were part of the article prior to being rewritten by certain editors:

I've actually pondered a lot about this. Earlier in the year I even considered keeping them in a box on the side like this. However, I'm now tending to think against adding them in the article, for several reasons. Firstly, they seem to overwhelm the section, not just in appearance, but also by suggesting to the reader that they are exceptionally important compared to the rest of the Manifesto. (why else should only they be so extensively quoted?)

But my research tells me that the opposite is true; scholars for several decades have largely ignored these specific demands that are relevant only to a specific context (mid-19th century Europe). Rather, what seems to be the lasting legacy of the work is the succinct formulation of the materialist conception of history, the analysis of the bourgeoisie, the "inevitability" of proletarian revolution and the florid language through which this is expressed. This is what spurred revolutionaries around the world, and what scholars have focussed on.

Having said this, I do want to write more about them (both in the Synopsis and the Analysis sections), but a direct reproduction would be overkill.—indopug (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * indopug (talk), ten sentences would be "overkill"? How do ten sentences "overwhelm the section"?  You do realize you have added quite extensive words recently, but are reluctant to include the ten demands.  These ten demands speak volumes, thus why they are quite succinct in aspect and message.  If it would make you more comfortable, I could simply wait until you have added what you perceive to be the necessary edits to the article and add the ten sentences after your work is completed.   - HafizHanif (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Every Wikipedia article is a reflection of, and based on, reliable sources. And the sources in this case simply do not deal with ten points in any detail. Marx and Engels themselves allude to their short-term and localised nature, calling them "measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production. These measures will, of course, be different in different countries."


 * Also, a ten-sentence quotation of the primary text is not at all small. Wikipedia articles don't exist to reproduce the primary text, but to explain them.—indopug (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * indopug (talk), as already stated, I'll wait until you're done with your perspective. I did state in my last edit that I asked for people to add to those sections I made.  Perhaps you missed my note prior to your deletion / revert.  -HafizHanif (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Discretionary Sanctions Jesus in Islam
Please note that the article Jesus in Islam does fall under these discretionary sanctions. This is just to advise you of a situation of wikipedia and does in no way imply any misconduct on your part. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Could I see this notification as an invitation to assist with the page at issue? ;) -- HafizHanif (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Right now Y'all are handling the issue in the correct way, by having discussion on the article talk page, I'm going to try to remain uninvolved. If you feel as though y'all will be unable to reach a consensus on the material try The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard --Cameron11598 (Talk) 16:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see any discussion, remedy or input from whomever has issue aside from nonsensical lectures according to their p.o.v.. I don't have a conflict because nothing has been presented or offered from which to work with. What I do see is disruption without discussion, vandalism / deletions and a failure to follow basic wiki guidelines and instructions. -- HafizHanif (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced page
Hafiz, I moved the misplaced page at User talk:User:HafizHanif to the more proper User talk:HafizHanif/archive 1. I'll request the resulting redirect be deleted. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Very kind of you, thank you! -- HafizHanif (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

July 2016
Your recent editing history at Criticism of the Quran shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. Neil N  talk to me 23:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * User:NeilN, I've asked the current edit warrior to cease blatant vandalism (now veiled as "talk page discussion" prior to simply deleting or rewriting cited summaries), to contribute an effort into finding citations. But the editor seems to simply not agree with the critiques, so they justify any and all arguments to rewrite and revise what is cited, going as far as keenly ommitting the very details that are already mentioned in the article and clearly mentioned in the source(s). I performed source finding today and added citations to several unsourced portions, and the editor simply went on to further contest and argue the newly cited material (ignoring their previous contentious issue they had). I have requested page protection because honestly, having to revert an article almost daily is quite discouraging. Then having to walk someone through their misunderstandings and so on, is quite tasking and makes me think twice about performing any good faith effort in developing poorly written / cited articles. HafizHanif (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest you read WP:NOTVAND. This is the second edit war you've been involved in within a short period of time on that article. --Neil N  talk to me 23:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What should I do? Let the effort fall to disruption and omission? There was a previous vandal that is quite notorious for their disruptive efforts (perusing their talk page), and as this article's history, your reverts and that of others show, this article is constantly having to be corrected... and one contentious editor has been traded for another, it seems. Interesting timing.  This article's history shows what I've contributed and the manner I've responded to and entertained both sockpuppets and seemingly honest editors alike, but if you and others see different, I can leave the effort and this article can fall back into what it was. -- HafizHanif (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Reading WP:AVOIDEDITWAR might help. You can ask for a WP:3O, open a WP:RFC, go to WP:DRN... --Neil N  talk to me 00:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I know there are several other editors who are watching the entire exchange, jumping in to revert and such, yet I have to deal with all this and being accused of being a liar. -- HafizHanif (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Two points:
 * If the other editor seems to sincerely believe that his (or her) changes improve the article – even if everyone else agrees that the other editor's changes are objectively worse – then it's not vandalism. You need to stop claiming that there's any vandalism when the other editor is trying to do something appropriate.
 * WP:There is no deadline. It just doesn't matter if m:The Wrong Version sits there for a few days.  It might be discouraging to think about this, but fewer than 100 people will actually read the paragraph that you're fighting over.  Sure, they'll get somewhat less detailed information for a few days, but it's just not the end of the world.  Stop reverting for a few days while you get some help from other editors.  And you'll find it a lot easier to get the help you need, if you don't end up being blocked.  Start thinking about your long-term needs here.  Step one is "don't get blocked".  Step two is "get help with improving the article's contents".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks User:WhatamIdoing, I appreciate the input. -- HafizHanif (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is difficult. Advice? Play by the rules, take you chances, but don't take the bait! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello HafizHanif, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Jesus in Islam 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) 23:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks Diannaa 🍁 (talk), I appreciate the notice and clarification. I'm still adjusting to all the rules, did not intend to break nor violate any copyright. I'll do my best when restoring the contributions I've made to make them according to the guidelines and wiki parameters. -- HafizHanif (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2016

Sana'a manuscript
"Usually when someone is so adamant about their editing, or introducing a particular 'change', and they fail to comprehend what is being pointed out, I take a look at what other edits they are performing on Wiki. I've noticed a pattern.

You also have / had a debate regarding a similar effort at the History of the Quran page. You seem to express that intention here, again based more on your opinion of findings and less on cooperating with others or reflecting what is already found in scholarship. I find that your effort is again biased and according to your personal tastes, and not so much the guidelines of wikipedia, or scholarship (which is what editors are supposed to work through, not use to push their personal thoughts).

You desire to override the work of several scholars from different institutions and revise the article to promote a single person's work, according to what you think you understand of their work (what you've already mentioned). This is bias.

Your effort to revise the perception of the Sana'a lower text is evident by the choice of words you have used in reediting the current citations regarding of the other scholars and current editor summary. You ask I go over each of the many edits you've made, but I do not work for you... and when I initially reviewed your edits, I found what I have already repeatedly expressed, and reverted them all.

Wiki can be said to be a sort of democracy, in that consensus needs to be reached to make such a revision as you've attempted. I opposed your effort and have explained why. Your need for me to hold your hand with each point you attempt is to ignore the revert and my several reasons why.

While truth is not found by majority rule (your quip about democracy), no single person's view (Hilali) can override an entire article simply because another person (you) think they are correct. We will have to find out from those whose work she criticizes (or corrects), and other scholars who are at work, not you nor myself.

Wikipedia is surely a democracy in the fact that you are allowed space to showcase certain published ideas (a paragraph or two), but not free reign (dictatorship or religious control state) to go ahead and revise an entire article to suit your point of view (pushing a religious bias) or an idea that has no factual foundation (the Quran was and has always been perfectly preserved, etc.).

I won't be responding to again repeat myself with what I've already pointed out. I have given my suggestion, pointed out your error, and you understand the third revert rule...so if you are tempted to repost your already twice reverted biased efforts, the issue will escalate. Good day"


 * HafizHanif; I am sure you are acting in good faith; but I should bring to your attention that the above remarks - when posted on an article discussion page - amount to casting aspersions Casting aspersions, and therefore impinge Wikipedia policies on avoiding personal attackes No personal attacks. This is not the first occasion that you accused me on the talk page of following a covert agenda in my posts; and following the guidance in such matters, I intially let this pass.  But your repeated infringement has lead me to respond here on your talk page; again as recommended in policy.  I imagine that you have been acting in the heat of your interest in the subject in hand, and are unaware that your method of proceeding is not acceptable in Wikipeda; but if you act this way repeatedly to other editors, you do risk being blocked from editing.


 * the key principle in the policy in question is stated as "As a matter of polite and effective discourse, arguments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all" and " ..disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." It follows that it is not acceptable (in an article discussion page) to accuse another editor of bias on the basis of a perceived 'pattern' in their posts; nor is it acceptable to revert their edits for that reason alone.  Debate on an article discussion page should only relate to the content of the edit in question; is it germane to the article, is it soundly based on published notable authority, does it accord with Wikipedia policies?  If the answer to the three questions is yes, then the edit should stand. If nevertheless the tone, style  or phraseology is deficient, then suggest specific improvements. But the general rule is to avoid any assertion focussed around the subject 'you' in an article discussion page; if such remarks have to be made, they should look to be be resolved (as here) on the editors own talk page.


 * Please read the Wikipedia policy pages; and then re-read your posts. I am confident you will see where you have overstepped the mark, and the matter need not be referred to further.


 * Hopefully we can then get back to the business in hand; which is agreeing together improvements to the article; your removal of the non-scholarly edit relating to the Atlantic Monthly article being a clear instance of such necessary improvement. There is a lot more to come. TomHennell (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Why the veiled threat? I've been addressing your efforts and answering what I see wrong. I spoke to your bias and zealous revision, and you've ignored my points. I found a similar effort of yours at a different article and mentioned it, addressing it directly to you. You also ignored that completely.


 * It is you who is now taking this personally and have somehow interpreted my opinion of your efforts as a breach in policy. Each mind is its own world, so you see one thing as I see another, but you've failed to address my reasons in reverting your overreaching edits. You are now making a bigger deal because it seems instead of you addressing your bias, you'd rather quibble with me. Now you come here to seemingly harass me and try to threaten to get me in some kind of trouble. I think it is petty. Go in peace, my friend, and cease bothering me. -- HafizHanif (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Please read the Wikipedia policies HafizHanif, it is always improper and a personal attack for one editor to accuse another of bias on an article discussion page. If an editor is accused of bias on a talk page, that accusation should not be responded to on that article page; but the unacceptable behaviour brought to the attention of the editor in question on their own talk page.  Discussions on the article talk page should only concern the contents of edits, their sources and conformity to Wikipedia policy.


 * Bias on the part of editors is highly undesirable, and if done persistently may amount to Disruptive editing, but is not in itself a valid reason to reject a proposed edit. If an edit is sound, it should stand irrespective of the suspected motives of the editor.  Note especially the policies on arriving at consensus Consensus "Limit article talk page discussions to discussion of sources, article focus, and policy."


 * I shall not be discussing this issue further here; and certainly not be pursuing a dispute resolution on my behalf, so long as you avoid unacceptable personal attacks in future on the talk page of the Sana'a manuscript article. I shall shortly be returning to the article with additional edits setting out Asma Hilali's pespective on the palimpsests, and I will welcome any discussion from you on content, focus and policy; and any suggestions you may propose for improvments in style, wording and tone. I shall then return to my previous edits of the existing text of the article, proposing improvements at points where these sections do not currently represent the sources cited or the range of current scholarship. Again your input to improve these edits will be most welcome, and I look forward to your comments on sources, article focus and policy. TomHennell (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Your attempt to instruct me on manners is irrelevant and ridiculous. There has been no personal attack. Cease bothering me here. As for your contentious edits at the article in question, I'll simply revert your work if you continue to push your POV and revision through that single person's yet unpublished work. However, I won't be repeating myself, so what I have already stated will stand on behalf of your seeming desire to continue a quibble over things already clarified. -- HafizHanif (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Islam al-Behery.jpeg
Thank you for uploading File:Islam al-Behery.jpeg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, thanks for pointing that out. I retrieved the image from that individual's FaceBook profile. I was unsure about the copyright considering it seems to be a selfie taken / uploaded by the individual. -- HafizHanif (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * , what is the next step? -- HafizHanif (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You'd need to ask them to confirm the license. see Donating copyright materials and WP:COPYREQ ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for those links. I'll message the individual about it. -- HafizHanif (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. – Batreeq ( Talk ) (Contribs) 23:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

New message from Jtrrs0
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:History of equity and trusts. &#x0020;Hi, I'm trying to improve the article on the history of equity and trusts and noticed you contributed large amounts of it. I just wanted to let you know in case you wanted to comment. All the best. Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)