User talk:Justice007/Archive 17

April 2015
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Muhammad Iqbal. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Tide  rolls  13:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you edit this article again without a consensus being reached first, longer block periods will result.  Tide  rolls  13:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean here only the dispute or also improving and expanding the article as whole Justice007 (talk) 07:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Tide rolls, please clarify your imposed restriction; If you edit this article again without a consensus being reached first.


 * It is simple. You have demonstrated that you do not understand the framework of rules and conventions within which we work on this project. Have you read the policies and guidelines to which you have been directed? I think if you had you would have been able to avoid your block. My restriction, as you call it, aims to help you avoid future blocks. Read the policies and guidelines. Observe and engage other editors. Ask questions. My point is that you have a bit more to learn.  Tide  rolls  18:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Tide rolls, yes, I confess, I have to learn not only some extent, but more extent, I remain in learning. Is it the clarity that I asked? I know very well, why I was targeted. I do not want to illustrate a point to win, but is that for the project to cheer, and this ??!!. You know very well, I was maintaining the policies per  "neutral point of view" policy is to present the subject as they are presented and covered by the mainstream academics. You are not a child, but you are an administrator though I see to some extent your neutrality. Anyhow, I close this topic here. I will try to follow policies rather focusing on the editors, I hope other will do the same.Justice007 (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)




 * JamesBWatson, would you please clarify; The editor who uses the pseudonym? Justice007 (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In the days when I created my account back in 2006, the account creation dialogue encouraged new users to read the username policy before choosing a username, so I did so. In those days, the policy gave a rather serious warning that using your real name might not be a good idea, so I quickly thought up another name to use instead. Later, I came to regret having chosen a usernmae that looks like a real name, because it is likely to give the impression that I am pretending to be someone I am not, whereas had I chosen an obviously nonsense name, such as "The emperor's sock", nobody would think I was making such a pretence. By the time I came round to thinking that, I had such an extensive editing history, and had been involved in so many discussions and so on, that I thought changing my username might confuse people, so I stuck with the name I had. However, as time went on, I became less and less happy about the possibility that I might mislead people, so eventually I put a note in my signature declaring that it is a pseudonym, so that nobody can be in any doubt. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * JamesBWatson, collective reply, wonderful story and reality, it looks like also my story. Yes dear, it is exactly so, similarly, give something of value to someone who will not appreciate it, as in the old professor felt that lecturing on Dante to unruly undergraduates would be casting pearls before swine. Take a look to that two Quotes by someone about-What the people think.

"'When a consensus will base on the voting and non-neutrality and not following and acting on a concept of its originality, it is only the dissension and the politics, nothing else.'"

"'If you are jobless, you have not any special ability, even you can't get the cleaning job. Join the Wikipedia and become an editor. You can knock all the educated figures, lawyers, professional journalists, academics and specialist of any subject down by the Wikipedia rules and policies that contradict each other. You have the specific weapon the consensus. Your friends can let you win all factors. You can make with that the wrong to the right and the right to the wrong. You can decide the reliability and the assessment of things, no matter you qualify for that or not. You have many tools for harassing others. That means the Wikipedia.'"

Anyhow thanks for clarity.Justice007 (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that you have posted comments to the page User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  15:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

what was wrong
AOA You have reverted the changes made in Pakistan page. About Rice and Lassi, MAngoes of Mirpurkhas , what is wrong in this ? isn't Mangoes largely produced in Mirpurkhas Sindh, Rice in Larkana and Lassi is also common drink of rural Sindh as well as its liked in many urban cities of Sindh. So therefore its requested you kindly have a moderate view and re-include those changes. Thanks and regards @JogiDon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jogi don (talk • contribs) 06:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

June 2015 Wikification drive.
Greetings! Just spreading a message to the members of WikiProject Wikify that the June drive has been started. Come on, sign up! :) &#34;A wiki of beauty is a joy forever.&#34; Seriously. That&#39;s how long it&#39;d take to read! (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Sadda Haq (TV series)
I am really sorry if any of my contributions on the page had hurt you. Thanks. Hcns (talk) 07:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, no, not at all, we are here for the project, we assume good faith. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 07:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:BRD, again
Your recent editing history at Pakistan 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 get 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. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It is just your childishness and invalid notice.Justice007 (talk) 08:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. —  Trip Wire  talk 14:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * TripWire, please read with the care canvassing that states in the lead section; "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieving consensus." I just asked him to give his opinion so that the dispute can be solved in accordance with the rules. Asking of an opinion on the talk pages of other editors in good faith, is not a matter of the canvassing, but the canvassing is that how do you know about that matter? and it is harassment too.Justice007 (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The only place you should ask for opinion/views in this case is here. What you did was text-book canvassing, you are senior enough to understand this, so stop acting naive. There's nothing more to discuss.—  Trip Wire  talk 15:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay TripWire, maybe my way was not appropriate, but I did not mean to get the favour if no one bother what is going wrong, and articles are being substandard, I did for the credibility of the project assuming good faith. Have a nice day.Justice007 (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey why are you editting Fawad Afzal Khan's page? I think it was alright before. Tell me the reasons.

Why you have removed Fawad Afzal Khan's external links? They were official.

Ismail ibn Musa Menk
Dear Justice007, I hope you are well. Please see the Ismail ibn Musa Menk page, its talk page, and its edits log. I'm having difficulty with one editor who repeatedly adds unreferenced (or weakly referenced) material and seems to want to create a fan page. Can you please keep an eye on the page for a day or two? Thanks and regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Jinnah
I appreciate that this article does seem to attract the attention of people with some pretty extreme views. That does not, however, entitle you to instantly “revert” each and every edit made on it. I notice a lot of this kind of behaviour on Wikipedia these days, even when revisiting articles which are almost entirely written by me and have since been hijacked by some self-appointed guardian. At its worst, as here, it just slides into “ownership” behaviour – kneejerk deletion of other’s contributions because “you don’t like it” or “don’t see why that’s important”, the very sort of thing of which you accuse others on the article’s talk page, and even in this case where somebody is improving the article or correcting obvious error.

Personally, I never “hit the revert button” on any constructive edit – it is arrogant, inflammatory behaviour, invites an equivalent response and is equivalent to throwing the first punch in an argument, and in my experience the person who does so is almost invariably wrong. In articles which I keep an eye on, I don’t delete other people’s material and I usually try to incorporate what somebody has tried to add, unless it is complete crap, not least because that sets a good example to others.

Clearly, it is useful to the reader to be told the correct name for the “period of apprenticeship” which English barristers have to serve rather than simply describing it in vague language, not least because the term is still used today and any English-trained barrister would use it. The article should use correct terms, and we shouldn’t even have to be arguing about this.

The fact that it is a “featured article” means that somebody is supposed to seek a consensus on the talk page before making major changes, not that you may prevent anybody from correcting mistakes in it. Sometimes articles get “featured” status because somebody glances at them and says “it contains nice pictures and lots of citations”, not that “experienced editors” have checked every last detail (I’ve been on wikipedia for about a decade in different guises – how much more “experienced” do I have to get before I am allowed to edit it?). I’ve certainly come across featured articles which are full of rubbish, where somebody has used poor quality books, has not read widely enough, understands some parts of the subject better than others or simply has not understood what he has read at all. I doubt that many people who take an interest in Jinnah know much about his legal career, to be honest.

And what on earth does “not the guess” mean?Paulturtle (talk) 03:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Adding wiki links is not a problem, but the changing of the years needs reliable sources not only one's personal guess or idea. Anyhow, I assumed good faith as you. Thanks. Justice007 (talk) 09:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hridayananda Dasa Goswami
Dear Justic007. I hope you are well. I am wondering whether you could take a look at the Hridayananda Dasa Goswami page and help me to keep it neutral (if you agree it isn't in places). I know the subject might not interest you, but one editor seems to want to make it a fan page, with weak (non-neutral or blog-style) references (or none in places). I certainly don't want to edit war, so a neutral editor's views will help me to know whether I'm seeing this page correctly. Thanks and regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Mufti Menk's bio details
Dear Justice007, I hope you are well. You reverted me on the Menk bio page because you said his educational details were in the source (http://allafrica.com/stories/201506251539.html). I've checked the source again. It does not contain those details. Please can you clarify for me where you are reading these things? Thanks and regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * George Custer&#39;s Sabre, I am fine, sorry that I was not in log for couple of days, as I told in edit summary that I am citing the primary source if you think that is not enough to support the content, I have no objection. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Great. Thanks. :-) George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

G.A. Parwez
Hi Justice007, there is currently some inaccurate information in the DAWN articles concerning Parwez that is now on the wiki page (e.g. the stuff about praying in Urdu, which is actually false. It was what the AhleQuran who pushing for this and Parwez publicly debated against them in Pakistan.) There are a lot of misconceptions about Parwez, and some of them have found their way into N.F Paracha's articles, although in general he has done a good job highlighting the merits of this scholar. I will be correcting this and adding more stuff using sources eventually, probably this coming weekend when I have time. I've also talked to moderators and admins regarding inserting material without incurring copyright penalties. If you have any concerns, please ping me on the talk page of the article. Thanks Code16 (talk) 11:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have not problems if you can expand the article if the sources support the content. I edited as the information of the sources; I did not go in the history of the subject.Justice007 (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * @ Justice007 You undid most of the revisions I made yesterday without justifying your edits. You also removed cited material claiming that the sources are not "reliable". For example, you inserted the word "Quranist" again based on a DAWN article, but removed the PTV interview in which Parwez defends himself, plus multiple other sources to this effect. This is why I created a "differing opinion" section so both sides of the argument can be heard. I didn't delete your source, but you deleted mine. That seems to me to be in breech of NPOV. I will be taking this case up to the administrators board to ask for guidance. Please refrain from making edits until the Administrators analyze the issue and make a judgement. Thankyou. Code16 (talk) 14:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Code16 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Ahmed Deedat
Dear Justice007, I hope you are fine. Could you please have a look at the Ahmed Deedat page and its recent edits. One editor seems intent on attacking Deedat by using really weak sources. I don't have any view for or against Deedat. I just want the page to stay accurate, balanced and well-referenced. Thanks and regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It was done by someone else. Justice007 (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Seeking your input
Greetings sir,

I'm seeking your input regarding the sources collected for the Parwez article here:.

It looks like most of the sources are being accepted, just two questions remain: Your opinion will be highly appreciated. Thank you. Code 16  ... Logic Bomb !  11:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Can I insert the sourced comment that Parwez rejected "some" hadith to clarify (not remove) his "Quranist" title?
 * 2) How many primary sources can I use to suppliment the 3rd party sources on which there is consensus?


 * I have replied on the talk page of the subject. Justice007 (talk) 12:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Justice

I hope you are well.

The format that previously existed was in-line with many MPs and there was no need to change it - "if it aint broke don't fix it". In addition, it got rid of a contribution by a sock puppet which could not be done other than manually due to changes you made.

- Your changes may have been well intentioned but significantly changed the inference of a number of headings to being negative rather than honest or in some cases accurate. Examples:

- He was a Minister in the dept of communities and local government but you have replaced it with communities minister.

- Where it states in the heading that he was "Cleared of Breaching the rules on expenses" you have replaced it with "Breaching rules on expenses" - clearly he did not breach them and your heading suggests that he did. Similarly he was "Cleared of breaching the ministerial code" but you replace it with "breaching the Ministerial code" - which clearly gives the wrong inference. etc etc

- In addition, you want sources for trivial things which are not contentious. It was written that his mother was a Justice of the Peace - does that really need a source? Just for your info http://www.famousbirthdays.com/people/shahid-malik.html

- You say that him having six siblings needs a source but actually its seven and gain its not contentious or important in the grand scheme of the page.

- You see the heading should be Justice & Home office minister but he was minister in two separate depts and hence "Justice Minister & Home Office Minister"

I hope you found the above useful.

thank you

Brotherblog (talk) 04:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Syed Zahoor Shah Hashmi
Hi,

I am wondering why have you deleted the correct information and sections of 'Syed Zahoor Shah Hashmi' page, I've collected 80% of the information from their official dictionary preface. I'm not challenging your edits but it discourage someone to add valuable additions to Wikipedia with authentic information.

I'd really appreciate your assistance further to help me complete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mocineli (talk • contribs) 09:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Mocineli, I will do my best to expand the article soon, content was unsourced that's why that was removed. I hope this helps.Justice007 (talk) 12:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Faizan, thank you very much for the barnstar, it is a great pleasure that you value the neutrality and guidelines of the project. Justice007 (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Additions to the Jinnah page
Greetings again sir,

Please contribute your input to the following when you have time:

Thank you c Ө de1+6  L o g i c B o m b !  01:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Sir, any input on this matter will be greatly valued, if you can please spare some time? c Ө de1+6  LogicBomb!  19:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Pakistan: Anwar Zaheer Jamali
Sorry, i had to revert your edit, Anwar Zaheer Jamali has already taken oath as Chief Justice of Pakistan, you reverted my edit but then did not come back to add it in, as to your comment "do not create unnecessary work for us". You are wrong about that, i did not have such an intention, it was already September 10 when i made that edit although Justice Jamali did not take oath by that time but his term as Chief Justice officially started on September 10, 2015. Sh eri ff (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Today he took the oath, but not yesterday. No problem now.Justice007 (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Honestly, when i made the edit, it was already 12 AM of September 10 in Pakistan :) Sh eri ff  (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad Al Yaqoubi edits
For personal safety of the Muhammad Al-Yaqoubis family he has requested information regarding his wife and children are not placed on this public forum. Please respect safety concerns in this current time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadhilli (talk • contribs) 14:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad al-Yaqoubi
Dear friend, I hope you are well. Can you please have a look at the bio article on Muhammad al-Yaqoubi. One editor, User:Shadhilli, keeps deleting information claiming he is doing it on Yaqoubi's direct instruction. Even if that's true, it is not a reason by itself to remove material. I have not broken the three-revert rule, and I certainly do not want to do so. Thanks and best regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Shadhilli

Hi, i am sorry i am new to this adding information, Sayyiduna Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi has requested due to safety concerns private information regarding his wife and children are not published on this website. In current times I am sure this is understandable User:Shadhilli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadhilli (talk • contribs) 14:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Lead sentence....
Sir, that sentence you edited (Ideas of Ghulam Ahmed Pervez is the subject that focused on.....) does not make sense. Please check the lead sentence of a similar page like Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. The exact title of the page is not necessarily needed in the first sentence. However, I have modified the sentence to start with "Ghulam Ahmed Pervez's ideas focused on...". I hope this will suffice as it has almost the exact title of the page.


 * Also, that second sentence you added is from another source altogether, and is already mentioned in the category below "Islam and Individual Liberty". So I removed it. The first sentence is the one that is sourced by the current citation there. c Ө de1+6  LogicBomb!  01:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No problem.Justice007 (talk) 10:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you sir. c Ө de1+6  LogicBomb!  16:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for participating


Thank you for your interest in Women in Red and for your participation in the virtual Women in Leadership Edit-a-thon, 7-20 September 2015. It was a resounding success with over 160 new articles. Your contributions are appreciated! We'll keep you posted on future events. --Ipigott (talk) 09:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:BRD, again
Your recent editing history at Muhammad Iqbal 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 get 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. Sh eri ff (report) 12:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Your tag fall under User space harassment, the same tag that I posted on your talk page to comply the rules instead of that you posted the same on my talk page. That is not the way to edit the Wikipedia. Your tag is not legitimate.Justice007 (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Where does Harassment say that you cannot post the same tag on another user's talk page when he is involved in the same behavior that you are? Point me to that please. Sh eri ff  (report) 13:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Can of worms
It would have been easier and helpful if we would have agreed to remove Gujarati script from Muhammad Ali Jinnah page amongst ourselves. Now, while the can of worms has opened, we are getting questions on why Urdu is there. Sh eri ff (report) 19:06, 9 October 2015 (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) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Your attention
AoA, May I request you to extend me your services as mediator for a Pakistani Urdu poet Rehan Azmi? If you permit me I will propose your name on the discussion page. Thanks Nannadeem (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * With ref to your talk for copy edit the article Rehan Azmi at 10:30 13-12-2015 (UTC). You may see reduced size with removal of citations for the page and simultaneously deletion vote on 15 December   by the same editor.  Is this justice to the request I made to you?   Nannadeem (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much for your appreciation.Justice007 (talk) 10:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad edit
Hi, I just reverted your Muhammad edit. While most of the changes you made were fine, some changed the phrasing of quotations, which obviously shouldn't be done. Can you watch for that when editing? Thanks.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  02:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, Chowbok, you should have fixed the quotes rather the entire reverting, learn how to edit and try to improve the things, do not take the easy way. I did not see the marks or commas of the quotation, maybe, I missed some of that? Please revert your reversion, and fix the quotes. I hope that helps. Justice007 (talk) 13:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Yousuf Gabriel
Dear Justice007, I hope you are well. I know you are busy but I'll be very glad and grateful if you'll please look at the Yousuf Gabriel page and in particular at the deletion recommendation page. I believe the page clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO and may have been created by a fan (the only editor aside from me) to promote the sale of a book. In any event, the article relies on unacceptable or weak sources and says almost nothing that can be considered encyclopedic. Thanks and best regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring
Stop reverting at Muhammad Iqbal; discussion does not take place in edit summaries. Go to the article talk page and establish a consensus for your version of the content.  Tide  rolls  13:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Anyhow, thanks, Tide rolls

Stop enforcing your views
You left me a warning on my page. I've removed it because you and the other editors actions seem to be equal to ganging up and enforcing what you feel should be there. As I said earlier, the reason the editor have for the removal of the content were irrational. There is no "doubt" in the sources that Iqbal said those things according to Edward Thompson. And also the editor who removed the content didn't do it again, so it seems that he understood his reasons were wrong. And I haven't been edit-warring. I only reverted a few times. I am going to revert it again as your edit as it has no solid reason to remove the content. However I won't revert again as I'm not interested in getting into an edit war. Now please don't revert unless you have a rational reason. It is wrong to remove sourced content without proper reason. If you want to talk, we can talk. But please don't enforce your views and remove sourced content over irrational reasons. KahnJohn27 (talk) 12:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Before blaming, first always check the sources, and adopt the encyclopedia way of the language. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring, as you did at Muhammad Iqbal. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:.  Tide  rolls  08:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Tide rolls, I did need a little bit of the time to step back from the situation and cool down. I do not need to refer the rules; you are well-aware of that, and that's why you are an admin. Briefly, there was already going edit warring; no one bothers to jump into the issue. It makes me surprise that when I reverted and maintained the previous version, and asked discussion on the talk page, but he, User:KahnJohn27, reverted again and again against the two editors disagree rather discussing the issue. I was not keeping track of my reverts; I was restoring the previous version, it is a routine practice on the Wikipedia that you know. He, User:KahnJohn27, left comments on your talk page, referring only my reverts, but not another editor. I have reservations, do not want to disclose in public. I realise that you were probably trying to act in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Would you mind pointing out the diffs that demonstrate a violation of WP:3RR? I think you may have accidentally blocked me when you intended to block someone else? I do not think that the project would afford editors departing the Wikipedia because of inappropriate behaviours; it is the great damage to the project. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 09:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not know that you violated 3RR. I executed the block because you continued reverting after you were warned. I appreciate that you began discussion. However, discussing the content is not a license to continue reverting. You may not have noticed but the other editor has been blocked as well. As for your allusion to departing the project, both here and in your edit summary, what do you expect? Should I abandon my principles and what I perceive the best interests of our readers because I am faced with a threat?  You do not know me well; indeed, how could you?  I came here to warn you to help you avoid being blocked.  I would greatly regret your leaving but I don't know what else I could've done. This is not your first edit warring block; do you not yet understand the problem?  I find that difficult to believe but if that's the case let me know what you find confusing and I will try to help.  Tide  rolls  13:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You are a senior most editor and best experienced. I follow most of the editors such as you. I listen and learn, and accept with due respect. I am not here with any agenda, nor I am going to blame others, but even I have reservations because of my real life. I have noticed that I am on the list. I do not mind that it is the second time that you blocked me, anyhow, you have some legitimate reasons to block, but the others, one or two were not entirely based on fairness, it is just my personal thought that those were on the agenda. I am not the person to make or cause a threat. I honour and respect everyone regardless any distinction. I learned from my Wiki-mentors, such as Nolelover, Drmies, LadyofShalott and others. It discouraged me and harassed that if, I revert or remove unsourced, poor sourced content that is harmful to the project and the misleading the readers. I do not understand anymore that why we have the rules, be bold, and remove immediately harmful content. I was just restoring the version per WP:STATUSQUO because two editors were in edit-warring. When you issued the notice that was not stating the facts; I was not adding any text or version to the article that I should discuss and reach the consensus. The due weight, was on another editor, who was persisting to add the text that was clearly the bias, and the poor sourced, and even the sources do not verify that text. I was trying to bring him on the talk page for the discussion; he did not come. I thought that I rewrite the text as the sources state, for the compromise and stop the edit warring. I did that in the good faith, but he reverted and directly came to your talk page, and you blocked me, even for one week. I took that as a punish and threat that I should never revert again anything; it is the truth. I can only laugh out on the rule; be bold, I think that, be bold means to be blocked. I respect your decision, but if I were you, I would have applied the article full protection rule for a month to bring the editors for discussion to reach the consensus rather using the tools. Anyhow, I appreciate your contributions to the project. I got the rest of one week. Thank you very much, sir, for such a way holidays.Justice007 (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry Justice, but I don't see a valid exemption in that edit war. There was no vandalism, there's no BLP violation. Having said that, your opponent's edits were poor and poorly verified (that Singh source is terrible), but you and the Sheriff could have, I believe, solved this on the talk page. Yes, we encourage boldness, but not past the point where an admin stays "stop". An attempt at a successful unblock request would have to include such guarantees. Drmies (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, Drmies, you are right, Tide rolls was also right. As you know that from the beginning of the article, I have faced many such problems, that are so disruptive that cause me confusion. I always assume the best for the project. I did not mean to harm the project. But this time out helped me take a step back and reevaluate the position again. Discussion, rather than reverting, is the right way to go. I know that, but I am human too. Thank you sir.Justice007 (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, thank you Justice. Some things are more easily solved than others, as I believe knows also (from having watched another conflict recently). Administrators have only blunt tools at their disposal, but as long as editors can't sit down face to face and discuss things--or in some cases won't discuss things--we have no better options. Tea time, my friend, and all the best to you and yours. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Do not forget, one cup for me.Justice007 (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Dear Justice007, I look forward to your return. You are an excellent editor. Regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, GorgeCustersSabre.Justice007 (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not able to comment at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents because of the blocked. I comment here;
 * Lakhbir87, I am becoming surprised that you got the time to discuss at ANI, but not on the article talk page, and accuse the admins rather realising the violation of the Wiki-rules. I broke the rule that's why admin Tide rolls blocked me. The respect of the editors also falls under the civility. You are wasting your energy to discuss in an awkward way while both admins Tide rolls and Drmies begged you very respectfully, not to revert for the sake of revert, but you bluntly ignored that. It is not the way that if someone breaks the rule; you should break too. We are here to improve the articles and maintain the rules, and standards of the project. We should not perform any agenda in any form.Justice007 (talk) 13:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yser:Justice007 Recently noticed your comment. I've already stopped reverting because I know my limits. That's something you, KahnJohn27, SheriffIsInTown don't seem to know or care. And actually I've already voiced my opinion during my reverts. I am in agreement KahJohn27's assertion of "SheriffIsInTown's reasons for reverting are irrational" as they seem completely unnecessary and made-up to me. The only reason I reported at ANI because Tide rolls got upset over a simple matter and blocked me although I do accept it was wrong for me to revert multiple times. That and I've requested the article to be locked. But still despite my opinion, I don't care about the article since it likely seems that all of you people on the article only seem to do what you want to do. Thank you. Lakhbir87 (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That you think, but it is not the reality, if you are challenged by anyone, you should discuss the dispute on the talk page and reach the consensus, it is a very simple thing. You and KahnJohn27 are adopting the disruptive behaviour rather discussing the issue on the article talk page. I will not object if you both reach the consensus, but without that, we are not going to compromise the false version, and poorly sourced text. You should use the knowledge rather just your emotions. Do not blame the neutral and fair admins, we are that, who compelled them to use the tools; they have to maintain the rules.Justice007 (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Please do not resort to blaming me. I've already stopped with the article reverts long ago and even apologised for them. You on the other hand seem to be only interested in what others did instead of accepting your mistake. I have already read KahnJohn and your and SheriffIsInTown's texts. After reading his sources. definitely his edits are not a false version nor any of Sheriff's reasons seem rational and seem to be just made-up. Which is why I supported KahnJohn. But then again, it doesn't matter. I am done with these arguments about the article nor I will be talking about it anymore. Take care and good luck with your editing. Lakhbir87 (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I request the admins especially Tide rolls and Drmies to unblock Justice007 as his revert in my view should not be considered part of edit-warring instead he did a good thing to start a discussion and after starting the discussion, it was okay for him to revert to WP:STATUSQUO version of the page so his revert should be considered part of maintaining the status quo instead of part of an edit-war and honestly there should be a distinction between habitual edit-warriors (obvious from the block log of KahnJohn27) and editors like Justice007. It will be unfortunate if he remains blocked for a period of one whole week and it will be unfortunate for Wikipedia and especially WikiProject Pakistan since that project is lacking editors at the moment.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 15:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:SheriffIsInTown, as you well know Justice certainly edit-warred, even if with good intentions. Moreover, given my long amicable relationship with Justice, it would not be proper for me to unblock him; another, uninvolved admin should do so. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Make me admin then, i will do so. lol  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 15:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Justice007 has demonstrated to my satisfaction that they understand the problem in this particular instance, Professor. I just don't know if I should unblock with the discussion ongoing at AN/I.  Hang in for a bit, Justice007, I'm sure something will break loose soon.  Thank you for your calm and understanding attitude.  Tide  rolls  15:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Between the fact that someone's closed the ANI section, and the fact that Tide rolls doesn't oppose an unblock, I have no compunction in acting without further input. That being said, I think it's time for an unblock; you're ready to discuss the situation, so keeping you blocked would be punitive.  Nyttend (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Appreciation

You will be missed
Hey, Justice, i hope you did not take recent controversies too much to your heart. We had our disagreements but i think you are an asset to WikiProject Pakistan. I hope you come back soon and continue your valuable contributions.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 16:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi
Dear Justice007. I hope you are fine. Can you please look at recent edits on this page - Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi - and see what you think of the sources used. One editor wants to use a blog and youtube, and I disagree. Thanks and regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers
Hi ,

In order to better control the quality  of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * 1) Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
 * 2) Editor-focused central editing dashboard
 * 3) "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
 * 4) Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
 * 5) Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded User wikipedia/RC Patrol (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, — Delivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)