User talk:Peaceworld111/Archive 1

Welcome
 Hello, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of Contents


 * Department directory

Need help?


 * Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
 * Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.
 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
 * Article Wizard — a Wizard to help you create articles


 * The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.
 * Guide to Wikipedia — A thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia.

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.


 * Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[Image:Signature_icon.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.


 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

, good luck, and have fun.

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Bai'tul Islam Mosque 1.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Bai'tul Islam Mosque 1.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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 05:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 05:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

January 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Darul Barakat Mosque has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Wysprgr2005 (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.- gadfium 05:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You were right - sorry
Hello. I owe you an apology - the reference does mention the top 50 buildings, but I missed it! 86.157.165.154 (talk) 11:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Signature
I am moving the whole discussion to the talk_page [] on the main article Mirza Masroor Ahmad, as anybody with similar mindset can restart the discussion there. Thus, it must be present on that page. Please answer there. Dawoodmajoka (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Spectator list
Hi Peaceworld111.

I noticed you have been listing the Baitul Futuh mosque as top 50 building of the world based on a Spectator poll.

I do have serious doubts about the validity and reliability of the poll, which I seriously suspect to be higly UK biased and probably suffering from other fatal methodoligical errors. The secondary mention from the Morden city council does not help me establish the worth of the claim at all. I have listed my major concerns at Talk:England. Can you have a look and agree whether we can solve this, or whether we should not take the list seriously. Thanks Arnoutf (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW Looking at the pictures I have to say I do like the building, a nice modernised, Anglicised version of a mosque, that still maintains its links to tradition. It reminds me of the planned (but sadly never materialised) Westermoskee in Amsterdam which would have merged Dutch brick masonry style with oriental shapes. It is just that being a profesionnal survey researcher I am deeply sceptical about haphazardly conducted surveys, and the internet ranking by many journal are often just that. Arnoutf (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010
Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Islam. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.  Neil N   talk to me  20:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

hi
hi. i believe that you wanted to leave your comment in the section below where you left it on the talk islam page, below the last entry marked "Oppose". Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Baitul Futuh
Moved to AlphaGamma1991. Peaceworld111 (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Your contributions at List of largest mosques might prove useful to addressing the relative size of the Baitul Futuh; also see the relative section of talk: Baitul Futuh--Mavigogun (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Peace in Islamic Philosophy
with respect and humility Iwant your kind attention to 'Peace in Islamic Philosophy' article, as it need edits to improve the content and features.I am hopeful that you would look it with interest.thanks and salaam. Zikrullah (talk) 07:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ill try Peaceworld111 (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Your edits to Zia-ul-Haq's Islamization
Unfortunately, your skills in the English language do not appear to be such as would allow you to legitimately make edits involving intricate grammatical constructions, and in any case, it's completely inappropriate to change the text of one of Zia-ul-Haq's Islamization laws to reflect your own opinion... AnonMoos (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Instead of criticizing my English language skills, please do recognise that the text you labelled as a quote is not a quote. All I wish to do is make a clarification, for which I can provide references. It is not my opinion that Ahmadis are officially knowns as Ahmadis rather than Qadianis. It is inappropriate to discard this fact. Please do keep this in mind. Thank You Peaceworld111 (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Then why is it expressed in legalese and given section markers "(a)" "(b)" etc.?? In any case, many of those who were involved in Zia-ul-Haq's Islamization seemed to delight in insulting Ahmadis and calling them by such names as "Qadianis" (they and those who think like them don't want to call them Ahmadis because "Ahmad" is a variant of the name Muhammad, and in their opinion Ahmadis are not actually Muslims at all).  Your edits to the article really seem to serve no constructive purpose that I can see... AnonMoos (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Separating text into two sections does not mean that they are quotes at all - in fact it is not in quote form at all. If it is a quote, then put it in quote form and provide reference which I can check. Wiki is not interested if the mainstream Muslims call Ahmadis Qadianis for whatever reason. If Ahmadis call themselves Ahmadi Muslims, Wiki will not discriminate them against their right. The constructive purpose as I pointed out earlier is to help the reader recognise that there is no such organisation or religious group who are officially Qadianis. Leaving the text as it was, will be perceived by most readers as if Qadianis is the official title and Ahmadis is secondary. Hope You've understood. Thank You Peaceworld111 (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is also interested in preserving the integrity of historical documents, and not making people seem to say things which they in fact did not say (even if you would have personally preferred that they had said something else). Why you think that Zia-ul-Haq's flunkies would have been tenderly terminologically solicitous of Ahmadi feelings while they were engaged in their work of oppressing and repressing Ahmadis is really beyond me. AnonMoos (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So where is the reference which I can check? Surely no-one can edit a quote without a reference. No one has a massively accurate memory! Peaceworld111 (talk) 09:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you think it's bogus, put a "citation needed" tag on it -- instead of trying to change it to be something else. AnonMoos (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not think its bogus. You are not understanding me. Even if it is a quote, (although there is no evidence for it), putting in brackets can mean an insertion made by the editor. I am not trying to change it to something else. Do you not know that editors sometime put brackets to try and explain something? Peaceworld111 (talk) 11:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Dude, if that was your intention, then you really, really needed to use SQUARE brackets "[" and "]" — instead of mere parentheses "(" and ")" — according to normal English-language punctuation practices, in order to make your intentions clear... AnonMoos (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OK Peaceworld111 (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Qadiani Problem
For the last time, stop adding that POV text to the top of the Qadiani Problem article! I know it's a derogatory term, but it's covered on other articles and does not need to be replicated there as well. Your edits are becoming increasingly disruptive, and you can be blocked for being disruptive. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thought you would be interested.
I am thinking you can be of help in replacing the dead links at Level_of_support_for_evolution and Theistic_evolution. Thanks

New Article: Pakistan and aparthied
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_the_apartheid_analogy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.30.126 (talk) 13:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Humanityfirstlogo.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:Humanityfirstlogo.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Religion in Pakistan
What you did here is vandalism and you can be blocked for. You can't revert constructive edits like this. You're removing academic sources from the article. Use the talk page if you have problems with my edits or point out what in particular is wrong with my edits. Thanks.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 23:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was a mistake on my part, thinking that you vandalised the page, but you should be careful about giving a sudden warning of blockage. Thanks Peaceworld111 (talk) 07:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Salam
want help from you. can i discuss why i am undoing the changing of NUDE DREAMS to VISIONS here on this page .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mirza_Ghulam_Ahmad Khalidnawaz123 (talk)
 * Sure, everyone is welcome to discuss. But I would always advise you to try and be neutral. Peaceworld111 (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Baitus Sami


The article Baitus Sami has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * is not sufficient for notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Oo7565 (talk) 11:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hadayatullah Hubsch


The article Hadayatullah Hubsch has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * WP:BLPPROD

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Revealed Sermon
A tag has been placed on The Revealed Sermon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Top Jim (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The British Government and Jihad


The article The British Government and Jihad has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * This does not appear to be a 'notable' book; see WP:VRS; no independent reliable sources, and I cannot find any

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Chzz  ► 21:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of A Message of Peace


The article A Message of Peace has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Dosen't follow Notability (books)

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Guerillero &#124; My Talk 20:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ummah Channel
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Ummah Channel, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.ummahchannel.tv/About_Us/index.php.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)