User talk:Hkettani

RE: Islam in Puerto Rico
I figure it would come to this. Anyways, the problem is that, as I stated in the edit summary. Took a look at Islam in Saudi Arabia for example. Notice any driving direction? List of mosques? This is what we call here in Wikipedia: Manual style. List of mosques aren't listed because Wikipedia isn't a list of discriminate information. It's not a used for driving directions. The article has aboundant images for an encyclopedia. I do not understand the importance? How do you know it's "important"? What makes it notable that it's important? Since you're new at Wikipedia, you should know there is a Wikiproject dedicated to Islam. Here is the wikilink: WikiProject Islam. You can ask them for help and bring up the issues of the article. Another thing, you haven't addressed the problems when I put up that tag before you removed it. That is all, Dr. Kettani.Magiciandude (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Administrator's noticeboard
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Syncategoremata (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello there. Is the article you added to Muslim world written by yourself? We cannot accept reference that are not considered suitable by the policies at this page. By inserting it yourself you are also in somewhat of a conflict of interest, no? This also presents a bit of a problem. We have no way of knowing whether you are a reliable source, or whether your work has been peer reviewed and found to be reliable; and we cannot really take your word for it easily. Please respond. S.G.(GH) ping! 21:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have links to reliable third party sources which acknowledge your own expertise in the subject? If so, I can open dialogue at this page for experienced users to check the validity of the document. And note I'm not complaining, I'm just following up on policy. I am sure you understand. S.G.(GH) ping! 18:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to add that one of the reasons I was initially concerned about these edits was because of possible copyright issues on the paper that you uploaded. You would need to show that the file is licensed in such a way as is compatible with Wikipedia's requirements, by being in the public domain for example. Alternatively you could give Wikipedia a licence for it, but we'd need verification that you are the author and that you still have the right to license it (that you have not granted exclusive license to the journal, for example). You'd need to verify your identity through the procedure at Donating copyrighted materials.
 * All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

HI SG: If you go to the end of teh paper you will find all the citations and sources of the census data and estimates. Also, the file is a variation of five papers (one paper per continent) that would appear shortly at the journal mentioned. The materials of the journal is available for free from the corresponding website. So no need for you to be concerned.

File copyright problem with File:IJESD2010.pdf
Thank you for uploading File:IJESD2010.pdf. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Image Screening Bot (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

CV
Hello. Why are you adding your curriculum vitae as a reference to various articles? Rivertorch (talk) 09:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks as if links to pdf files of papers you authored or co-authored have become stale and that you're substituting a link to your CV. If I'm right, that doesn't seem like a very good idea. I'd suggest instead using the tag pending the files' being hosted somewhere else. Or am I misreading things? I see that you've been reverted in several places, but we really should resolve this on all of the affected articles. Rivertorch (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, the pdf versions of papers and book are available in the "vita" link I included. Check before you complain! HK


 * I didn't complain—I asked a question. Now I'll complain: inserting links to your CV in articles is totally inappropriate. If you want to link to the PDF files, please link to them directly. And please make sure you read the guideline on conflict of interest before you do. You can ask for advice at the relevant noticeboard if the guideline isn't clear. Rivertorch (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#CV
I have initiated a related discussion at the COIN noticeboard. Please comment there if you like. (It is unnecessary to reply to this message.) Rivertorch (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hkettani - as noted at COIN CV used as reference and external link, you now are required to comply with Conflict of interest with regard to URLs used in Wikipedia references to which you are an author. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Vanity publishing
Please note that Wikipedia does not consider self-published works as reliable sources, except where the author has clear and demonstrable expertise in the subject matter, as verified by relevant academic or similar third-party sources. Even ignoring the obvious conflict of interest issues, your work is unlikely to be seen as of use to Wikipedia. If you wish to promote it, you will need to do so elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * RPS is not a self-publishing! Promoting nothing, just expert in the field contributing to the mentioned area of my expertise. Please discuss facts, instead of deleting all contributed knowledge to the article.
 * Hkettani (talk) 03:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Your expertise appears to be in the field of computer science. If you wish to claim that your work meets the Identifying reliable sources guidelines for the material you are citing it for, you will have to demonstrate that you have an academic reputation in the relevant subject matter. And even if you do demonstrate this, there is also the matter of your flagrant breach of Conflict of interest guidelines - which you have repeatedly had drawn to your attention already. Just so there is no doubt about this, I will make it entirely clear to you that if I see you citing your work on The World Muslim Population... again without first verifying that it is acceptable as a source at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and without first making your conflict of interest clear on the relevant article talk pages, and gaining consensus for its usage there, I will report you at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and ask that you be blocked from editing indefinitely for self-promotion, and for abuse of Wikipedia for personal advantage. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, please discuss facts and not try to project your opinion by threatening. You are jumping from cause to cause just to enforce your opinion. First you said self-published, and I proved to you that you are wrong. Now you say I am not expert in the field, with a 600 page book reviewed and published by a reputable international scientific publisher, your claim is refuted. Then you say conflict of interest, please identify which WP rule you refer to? A researcher citing his own reviewed and published work does not qualify as COI per WP rules. Now, may I know what motives do you have to exclude the contributed knowledge to the article? (talk) 06:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Since you clearly don't intend to conform with Wikipedia policy and guidelines on this matter, and since your actions are clearly to the detriment of Wikipedia, I shall be raising the matter at WP:ANI sometime within the next 12 hours or so (I should have gone to bed hours ago) - assuming it isn't already raised there or otherwise dealt with by someone else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hkettani - Your contributions to Wikipedia articles appears to be limited to posting summaries of information you wrote, placing footnotes to source material you wrote, and/or providing links to pages outside of Wikipedia to material you developed. You need to stop contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests. -- Jreferee (talk) 06:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Jreferee: Yes, that proves that I know what I am writing about and I am a reference in the field. If you read WP COI rules, it clearly makes room for citing your own research and linking to it if it is relevant to the subject, as long as it was reviewed and published by a third party (to exclude self-publishing). Now "editors" who never published and outside an area can do severe damage to the article by deleting its content and experts contributions. I ask you to refrain from doing so, so that we all elevate the quality of WP article content. (talk) 07:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * All: I have posted this to Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Please continue the discussion there to resolve the problem.

I am trying to contribute to history and size of population of Muslims in articles such as Islam in Asia. I have several peer-reviewed articles in scientific conference proceedings and journals and a recent 600 page book. So I added some results in Islam in Asia and other continent and cited by book. Interestingly, some editors such as AndyTheGrump, Jreferee and Dolescum keep reverting my contribution (basically deleting all of it and the source). They keep citing COI or self-publishing, none of which applies here. When I refute their allegations they come up with another excuse and keep threatening of blocking my account. Such "referees" or "editors" may have other motives that they are not disclosing. The job of an editor or contributor is to make the article better, not deleting all sources and information. Better means: checking facts, better reference, etc. Hkettani (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but self-citations are allowed per SELFCITE. May be mis-understanding is promoting such ill-informed editors to go to war! Someone needs to stop this as it degrades the content of articles. Experts like me will not put up with this and will give up easily (they are busy doing real research and real publications). However, bloggers and those who know less, in the long term will control the quality and content of WP articles. Something that no one wants for WP. Hkettani (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked
Your account has been blocked indefinitely because your username implies that you may be impersonating a living person. If you are in fact Dr. Houssain Kettani from Fort Hays University, please send an email from your professional account to [mailto:info-en@wikimedia.org info-en@wikimedia.org] in order to proof your identity. (see our blocking and username policies for more information). We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames, nor is trolling or other disruptive behavior ever tolerated. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text on your user talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. De728631 (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban
Per community consensus at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents you have been banned from making any edits citing, referencing or linking your own research in Wikipedia's article space. If you wish such material to be included in articles, you must first propose it on the relevant article talk page to seek consensus and you must clearly reveal your personal involvement. Any failure to abide by these restrictions, and/or any further disruptive editing in any namespace (including unfounded accusations against other editors) will be met with another indefinite block. The duration of this ban is indefinite but not necesserarily infinite. It will not be lifted once get unblocked in the impersonation issue stated above. Instead, you can then appeal the ban either at the administrators' noticeboard, or at requests for arbitration or clarification and amendment. For more information, please see Banning policy. De728631 (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Note - The content of an encyclopedia is not a popularity contest. It is rather a summary of facts, information and possible points of view. In the past, many ideas that were popular in certain geographical regions are now believed to be wrong. WP is unique for its accessibility, openness, and promptness in updating. It appears that anyone who can use WP editor becomes an editor. Consequently, some problems arise when amateurs write about a subject and exclude the experts. Of course the expert will cite their work, specially if it is the latest research in the field. As a result, WP article will be useless to say the least. Apparently, I am having a discussion with "editors" who do not know statistics, Islam/Muslims and other things. Anyone involved with an encyclopedia should be thirsty for information and do their best not to be biased or apply censorship. After all, the objective is correct knowledge to our best possible way. Even if we disagree with a statement we can add a counterpart to it, not just delete it and feel happy about that! Envy/jealousy/hatred do no good to an article or to ourselves. Hatred clogs train of thoughts and leads to ignorance and stupidity. It leads to insinuations, allegations, accusations, etc. When we refute each one, we get a new one, then threat of censorship and blocking. We get mad when a government practices that on us, yet we do that, which sounds and smells hypocritical. Alas, in a volunteer work, it is the trend that in the long run the work is controlled by the loudest, least qualified/knowledgeable, and those with narrow agenda. How many of those accusing me wrote a book, or even a peer-reviewed paper in a conference proceedings of journal? It remains to see if WP experiment can be protected and survive as envisioned by its founder. That what I hope for, and aspire for. I would not have invested time to improved its articles if that was not my intention. As for those who wonder why I did not add content to scientific/engineering pages, my answer is that those are well written and my addition/improvements to them did not seem necessary. Whereas the pages on the topic at hand (Muslims/Islam) are poorly written, sometimes off-track, and sometimes full of insinuations to the wrong direction. I use WP from time to time, and it was my way of showing gratitude to give back to the community through informative updates. Hkettani (talk) 06:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And the fact that, when informed your updates were not informative or constructive, was to respond with screeds like this, makes it clear to everyone but you that you are not here to improve the encyclopedia. Please start listening to what others are saying and consider that if a majority of people are saying "X" and you're saying "Y" then maybe you should at least consider if "X" might be correct. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not talking about this particular case but Majorities are always right? Galileo was wrong about the Earth orbiting the sun and Winston Churchill was just being a scaremonger when he talked about Adolph Hitler and Nazi Germany. That was what the majority said. BTW in 2010 there was at least one person who still thought Galileo was wrong....William 15:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Kudos Bill!...William. At last a fellow American! Cause I got blocked by Brits! My arguments and rationale were here Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. And I continue to stand by them. To this end, it is an intellectual embarrassment to be part of WP project. The administrative rights of De728631 and Floquenbeam should be revoked! Hkettani (talk) 05:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The Bushranger: If you read the whole discussion in Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents, you would not say what you've just said. It seems you came late to the discussion and was too quick to judge. I am open to listening and learning, but did not meet my intellectual match. It was clear from the beginning that the objective is oppression/suppression/exclusion. Why? Because, if you accuse me of A, then I refute it, then B, I refute, then C, D, E, F, .... Then the real reason is hidden, and certainly not a learning environment. Hkettani (talk) 05:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)