User talk:Kaifa06

Welcome!
Hello, Kaifa06, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Munafiqun does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kleuske (talk) 10:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

June 2018
Hello, I'm Kleuske. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions to Munafiqun have been reverted or removed because they could seem to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Kleuske (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

July 2018
Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Munafiqun, especially if it involves living persons. ''See WP:OR/WP:BLP. The conclusion that these persons are hypocrites is yours.'' Kleuske (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content, as you did at Munafiqun, you may be blocked from editing. Kleuske (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Kleuske, I have already explained that the content that I have used is not defamatory, as it is not libel. If there there was any evident untruth in the content from the cited references, I doubt they would have been have been permitted publication at all and they continued to stay published. I have indeed have referred to 'facts and interpretations from reputable websites' that I have provided a clear reference for in each instance. It should be immaterial as to whether the subjects are alive or not when the references are pertinent to the Munafiq term. In your article on "Tyrants" you provide a direct reference to lists of 20th and 21st century tyrants - how do you then explain this 'acceptable defamatory' information, your own obvious hypocrisy and biased stance? Are you not merely using your postition as editor to bully to supress important collation of information for the world's public because perhaps because of some (fear of) threat or backlash from some of the listed Munafiqs? The purpose of providing such a list is to provide context and real example to the uninformed and unaware reader that the distinction of Munafiq is very seperate from that a Mu'min. The Munafiqs listed are such a grossly evidence-based fit for the definition, that the question of defamation does not even arise. It is and would be disappointing for many current/would-be Wikipaedia readers to learn that actually your selective bias is employed to suppress a useful collation of relevant and contemperaneous examples of a term that is massively significant to many (growing) millions around the world.Kaifa06
 * Calling people hypocrites w/o proper sources stating they are hypocrites is defamatory and a violation of WP:BLP and WP:OR. Unless you have a reliable source that directly calls someone a munafiq do not insert that into an article. Also please refrain from personal attacks. Please consider this a final warning. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * All those sources I have used are validated news reporting websites. Why should you allow a source that lists persons as tyrants to be acceptable and any less 'defamatory' than the listing of munafiqs that I have given? Merely because the tyrant list is already 'in print' should not blindly grant it sufficient 'reliablity' than the Munafiq list that I have generated. That flimsy basis only serves to betray and prove your either deliberate or indifferent double standards and likewise your 'shielding' of such munafiqs (or tyrants if you like). Had I not provided robust references, I can then of course understand the objection of mere 'personal opinion'. There is no personal antagonism from me. I am merely stating the starkly obvious and that your decision to be so patently discriminatory and obstructive with regard to an important world interest, discredits your own so-called 'neutral' policy. Please find the courtesy(if you can) not to threaten me.Kaifa06
 * Unless the source uses that specific term, neither should Wikipedia for the reasons stated above. The same goes for "tyrant". If you cannot or will not abide by well established policies, you will be blocked. And again, please refrain from personal attacks. Kleuske (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)