User talk:Smatrah

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Usury into Interest. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Undiscussed moves
Hey there. Unless a move is likely to be uncontroversial, it's best to follow the process shown in Requested moves. Thank you. – Þjarkur (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

August 2019
Hello, I'm Harshil169. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Nikah Halala have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. ''As it is seen from the page, you have added too much tags on the page, this is one of the type of vandalism. See policy WP:VANDTYPES. There is no need to add tag after each line if you have already added the tag in the lead section. Also, when you declare some source as unreliable source then it is necessary to give explanation that why source is unreliable which you didn’t do here. Don’t do Tag bombing and Distrupting Wikipedia.''  Harshil want to talk? 05:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Messages to Banovicmiki14
Please do not accuse good-faith users of vandalism —please see what vandalism is not— that counts as a personal attack, which are prohibited. Thank you. El_C 03:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have studied so kindly explain which portion of guideline are say that removing a relevant verse on article Jihad is not vandalism. They are unconstructive reverts while adding an irrelevant Hadith is allowed.

"What has happened to you that you do not fight in the way of God for the oppressed men, women and children who say, "Our Lord, take us out from this town whose people are cruel, and make for us a supporter from Your own, and make for us a helper from Your own". (Quran 4:75)"

Smatrah (talk) 07:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not here to prove a negative. If you take issue with someone's edits, seek clarifications on the article talk page, and do so without casting aspersions. El_C 07:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Then why are you expecting from me to prove negative. I removed hadith and you or your puppet account re added it rather he must use talk page and should not put that burden of proof over me. Furthermore instead of taking issue on the talk page of Jihad and instead of replying on the talk page of that editor you are blaming me. Assume good faith and if it was mistake feel free to tell. Smatrah (talk) 11:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * [Y]ou or your puppet account — this is your final warning about personal attacks or aspersions. If you do it again, you will be blocked from editing. El_C 17:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Am really sorry if you think that it was personal attack or incursion. Please assume good faith and consider how Quran cannot be quoted while hadiths are quoted. Although Quran is verbatim word of God in Muslims view. While Hadith are observed carefully in accordance with Islam and Muslim jurists apply conditions for acting upon them. I hope being a senior editor you would reply me soundly and fairly and will not threaten me of blocking. Smatrah (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Using the term "puppet account" again, was a personal attack, again. You have therefore been blocked from editing. Please see the template below for details and refrain from repeating this behaviour in the future. . El_C 18:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for personal attacks. El_C 18:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:.

Administrator's noticeboard
You nearly got blocked for opening that discussion. However, the administrators have been patient and reminded you of the importance of seeking WP:CONSENSUS at the article talk page. Please also see WP:ONUS: the editor who adds the material must be able to justify it. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 12:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear i am asking to explain guideline, what is numeral distinction between short and long. He says it's lengthy. So tell me that distinction all will be fine.
 * I am thankful that we have such wikipedians who are patient thank you. Furthermore i have given my arguement. There is only undoing and no counter arguement and is only undoing. So please explain me what should I do.
 * Smatrah (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm I now noticed the block for sockpuppetry. This is unfortunate, but shows a lack of regards for the project's policies which I guess is no longer worth wasting time to explain again...Face-sad.svg  I will still point at standard offer in case you ever would like to eventually edit legitimately again.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 18:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not askig this standard. I am asking standard or crirteria for long. In other word how many letters (may include spaces and punctuation marks) at least a quotation have to deem it long. Such as 1000 or 500. Whatever you deem reasonable. Smatrah (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry
I did not do sock puppetry, i want justice just show evidence. Thank you. Smatrah (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

You are not permitted to remove (or edit) a declined unblock request for your currently active block. Please do not do so again. --Yamla (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you point which wikipedia guideline says so? Smatrah (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:BLANKING, see the bits that may not be removed. --Yamla (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)