User talk:Wikinameh

Speedy deletion nomination of Pro-Islamic bias on Wikipedia


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that Pro-Islamic bias on Wikipedia, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It is unambiguous vandalism or an obvious hoax. (See section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please do not introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia; doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.
 * It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. RileyBugz Yell at me &#124; Edits  07:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC) Thanks for you prompt reply! I was preparing an article on some Islamic-related articles that are thought to be removed by editors in Wikipedia and the mechanism upon which such a phenomenon is done. Your reply showed much about. Wikinameh (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Criticism of Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. RileyBugz Yell at me &#124; Edits  07:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC


 * Thanks for you prompt reply! I was preparing an article on some Islamic-related articles that are thought to be removed by editors in Wikipedia and the mechanism upon which such a phenomenon is done. Your reply showed much about. Wikinameh (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, while there are many articles discussing biases (including gender bias, corporate bias, ....) in Wikipedia, a few sentences on Islamic-related policy of Wikipedia is promptly removed.Wikinameh (talk) 09:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have removed them had you cited reliable sources. But, since you cited a prominent fake news website, Brietbart, I reverted your edits. If this is a real problem, then I do think there should be coverage of it. But I see absolutely no evidence that it is. RileyBugz Yell at me  &#124; Edits  14:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pro-Islamic bias on Wikipedia


The article Pro-Islamic bias on Wikipedia has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * WP:NOTESSAY

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Adam9007 (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Pro-Islamic bias on Wikipedia, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Pigsonthewing. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person   on Pro-Islamic bias on Wikipedia, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Note that Wikipedia cannot be cited as a source for such material.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC) Hello, I tried to complete and review the article based on the Wikipedia in order to cite reliable sources that are not a first-hand research.Wikinameh (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Pro-Islamic bias on Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC) OK. It will be removed, but I quoted a sentence from Wikipedia (by ignoring the next phrases) where you have said: "This editor has persistently misused sources ... despite many requests from other editors to change their behaviour. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.... just for one example, they are currently at number 209 in WP:NOE. Unfortunately a large number of their contributions, I believe, approach the level of vandalism, and repairing the misleading and falsified material that they have added to Wikipedia will take an immense amount of effort... The obvious impression from this editor's work is that they have engaged in a systematic distortion of their sources .... The links above are just a selection of the problematic edits collected at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Evidence .... That's an old and archived RfC. The point is still valid though, and his contribs need to be doublechecked. Misuse of sources - Jagged 85 (talk · contribs) is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits; he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology, medicine and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. . The same statement has been repeated in Wikinameh (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Cool story bro. Now, why should we change our mind about you? RileyBugz Yell at me  &#124; Edits  21:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pro-Islamic bias on Wikipedia


The article Pro-Islamic bias on Wikipedia has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and a coat rack to boot (for WikiIslam if nothing else.) References are 'lacking' to say the least. One conspiratorial non-notable blog and one more unhinged non-notable website about ANTI-ISRAELI SUBVERSION ON WIKIPEDIA.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Pro-Islamic bias on Wikipedia for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pro-Islamic bias on Wikipedia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Pro-Islamic bias on Wikipedia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)