User talk:Hamnavoe

Please read the quran before you write or undo changes on the wikipedia page. Next time site your sources before editing. Thanks. Regards, Khawar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.203.215.59 (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have read the quran and quoted the sources. Hamnavoe (talk) 05:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

In response to your feedback
I am glad that your Wikipedia experience is going well and that you are happy! Thank you for your feedback and thank you for your contributions! For more help on getting started, please look at Help desk and the help pages.

If you need help editing,
 * Check out the tutorial.
 * Wanting to create an article? Use the article wizard.
 * See the manual.

Cheers, Riley Huntley talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 22:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

&#160;

Response to your email
Quite likely. But I wasn't sure about restoring it all. Have you read WP:BLP and are you aware of WP:BLPN? Dougweller (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:AGF
Please assume good faith when editing. Do not accuse editors of having a biased view just because you disagree with their edits. Thank you. —  Richard  BB  12:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, I think you should take the issue of the third citation to the talk page. As per WP:BRD, it's time to discuss this rather than edit warring. —  Richard  BB  12:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * As an editor, you should really keep the NPOV. You're simply using your wikipedia privileges to spread your (I'd really say biased) agenda. That's not right. The counterjihad movement is complicated and far from united or unified. You blocked any edits which could help the reader to get the OBJECTIVE insight into the topic. Hamnavoe (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, I am keeping the NPoV. I have no Wikipedia privileges, no more than you. My agenda is simply to keep Wikipedia neutral; it is in no way biased. You must learn that Wikipedia works by providing third-party sources in order to document various topics. The citation is valid; just because you do not like what it says, that doesn't make it wrong to add. —  Richard  BB  13:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Richard, it's a lie. You know it, I know it. So please stop playing the games. Dont worry, I'll supply the required citations.Hamnavoe (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you should read WP:TRUE and WP:TRUTH. Your opinion that it's a lie isn't what we go on: we go on sources. And I'm not sure what "required citations" you could provide that will nullify the Islamophobic ones. —  Richard  BB  06:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The article is not objective and gives the reader the wrong overall picture. That's wrong. Hamnavoe (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Once again, I'd have to point you WP:V. We work on verifiability, not truth. You may have your opinions on what counterjihad is, but the citations disagree with you. Here on Wikipedia we operate on citations. —  Richard  BB  07:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)