User talk:Humaliwalay

Hallaur

Mr. HAW!

I never tagged this article (it was re-tagged by User:NeilN on 2010-05-23 18:49:11 after your removal of tags), infact I was trying to verify the references, fixing and arranging them. Regarding your comment his comments like {personal websites/blogs} is absolutely false and absurd. can be termed as personal attack. Content of this article has little to do with the references of India's state level Government and NGO web links. If you think it is based on these websites(or any of references in the list) you may start working on inline citations, that would be more in betterment of this article than accusing others without any reason.

Regarding Hallaur.in, indeed it is personal website may be not of individual but of group and Hallaur.info is under construction.

As per Government references even name of this article is not correct. All Gov references provided refer the place as Haloor & not Hallaur. I think this also needs to be fixed. May be content of article should be moved to namespace Haloor & a redirect put at Hallaur pointing to Haloor.

And finally your attitude and actions don't conform to your user name. First you should have verified and then put an accusations.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 09:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Faiz,

I tender my apologies for that statement, I realized later when I noticed the changes made by you that your actual actions were to make the article meet standard guidelines. However, at that time I already shot a message to you.

Thanks very much for your efforts, actually this article was composed by a person whose English seemed to be as second language with lots of grammatical errors followed by emotional statements at that time the neutrality was targeted of this articles followed by the language then grammar. I am working on this article since months to get rectified hence I requested everyone not to edit this article with any authentic reference.

I thank you once gain for putting your efforts, pls help us out to get rid of al tags. Apologies again. Humaliwalay (talk) 06:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Hallaur, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. This is the second time you've removed maintenance templates without fixing the issues. Please do not remove them again without addressing the issues. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

There was editing and formatting of this article done by me and Faiz Haider as well. Hence I removed the disputed tags. Pls highlight the errors again as the English language grammar error has been rectified by me to the best of my knowledge now in this article. Humaliwalay (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I've replied on the article talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Shia Islam in Pakistan

The article is all about Pakistan and its Shia community, officially and international Pakistan is considered as the second-largest Shia Muslims population, despite of fact that India also claims to the be having the second-largest Shia Muslims population, which i not really regarded authentic by the International community neither do they have any neutral sources to prove it. Since i am not repeatedly vandalizing the Shia Islam in India neither denying their claim, and not mentioning anything regarding the Pakistani claim or Pakistani Shia population figure, hence you shouldn't vandalize the Shia Islam in Pakistan article repeatedly, or else your childish behavior will be disregarded as nothing but as repeated vandalism, kindly follow the 3RR rules and regulations. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Alimaan Charitable Trust

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Alimaan Charitable Trust, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://alimaan.org. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites 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 Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Alimaan Charitable Trust

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Alimaan Charitable Trust, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://alimaan.org/, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Alimaan Charitable Trust and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Alimaan Charitable Trust, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Alimaan Charitable Trust with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Alimaan Charitable Trust. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Alimaan Charitable Trust saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Acather96 (talk) 08:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Faster fix for Hallaur

Hi! I see that you've been undoing a lot of changes at the Hallaur article that you believe are incorrect. Now, I have no knowledge about whether or those edits are correct or not, I do know that you can do the work much more easily than you did. When you want to revert a series of changes done by one editor, all you have to do is go to the last "good" version (using the article history), click the "Edit" button, then, in the edit summary, add the comment "Reverting to last version by (person) because (reason)." I glanced over the talk page information, and see that there has been some dispute about the tags. At the moment, the article still definitely suffers from a lack of sources. Wikipedia policies require that all information come only from reliable sources (not from one's own knowledge). It looks like most of the sections, except for the lead and the Demographics section need sources, so I just want to let you know that I'll be adding a tag to the article to that effect (and adding a note on the talk page). Regarding your edit summaries--you should generally leave out the word "biased," as it assumes bad faith on the part of the other editor--hash out differences on the talk page instead. Second, the fact that the other editor is "unknown" does not matter--Wikipedia allows anyone to edit any article at any time, as long as their following policies. Finally, at one point that IP editor made a legal threat. Whenever anyone does that, be sure to immediately warn them on their user talk page, as legal threats are never allowed on Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Yes you are correct, I do appreciate your advice that I should have warned that user about legal threat as it is not allowed, nevertheless after visiting user's talk page did I realize that the user was already warned about dubious and unnecessary edits and deletions but still vandalism was done to Hallaur. Like if any thing is included in the article should cite sources in the same manner deletion should be backed by reasons which lacked hence i refer it as vandalism. Secondly why I did editing in series and not once was due to editing being disrupted due to some technical issues. Yes apart from Demography and lead sections doe require sources nd we are working on that I have requested Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider, User:NeilN and everyone on Wikipedia to put forward their comments and render the possible help. Nevertheless at this time such a big scale vandalism occurred which without reason is not acceptable. Secondly you need to understand that why the user was referred as unknown, it was because the reason for deletion was not highlighted by the user. The answer is in your message itself that as long as the Wikipedia policies are followed any one can edit any article anytime, but the policy of reason for action was followed by that user hence the word UNKNOWN was used on part of irresponsible attitude of the user. Humaliwalay (talk) 05:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Humaliwalay. You have new messages at Qwyrxian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re. this request

 Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Thanks. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 10:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

122.177.15.211's legal threat

Hello, You may refer to Article history of article Hallaur, in one of the edits a legal threat was made straight away in the article which was noticed by me and user Qwyrxian.Humaliwalay (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that you mentioned on 122.177.15.211's talk page that he or she made a legal threat. Legal threats are a big deal on Wikipedia, but I see no evidence of the user ever making one (of course, if it has been oversighted, then that would explain it). To what are you referring? Also, note that there are easier ways to warn users for vandalism than typing out a whole thing. A non-comprehensive list is located here. The most common is uw-vandalism1 and its higher versions. --Quinxorin (talk) 05:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Shia Islam in Netherlands

Courcelles (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Library of Congress Country Studies

As per this post - if you have a issue with Library of Congress Country Studies then you take it to the WP:RS/N, I don't have a problem with it. Codf1977 (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Shi'a Islam in Pakistan, without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered vandalism. Further edits of this type may result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Codf1977 (talk) 07:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not vandalizing any thing, rather you are engaged in such kind of business, Library of Congress is not an authentic source and this has been discussed on reliable Sources page as well, so you better cite those references which are authentic and undisputed and if there is disagreement on reliable sources then shall the tagging gets applied, you claim other editors to lack knowledge, do you have knowledge when and why to tag an article?? Please refer the discussion on WP:RS/N - Humaliwalay (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of vandalizing any thing, the template message says "Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia .... may be considered vandalism" - secondly the discussion on the WP:RS/N clearly states "I don't see any reason why they couldn't be accepted as a WP:RS if properly attributed" and goes on to say "when reliable sources differ, the disputed information is summarized" so what is your problem that is what the article was doing. Codf1977 (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Shi'a Islam in Pakistan. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Codf1977 (talk) 09:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I cannot understand and its tough time for me now, why do you hesitate to discuss and keep threatening however I have reported this matter to Administrator and let them review this, it has been noticed multiple times that you tend to insult others and threaten others on their talk page like you are doing to me but you keep on deleting the posts on your talk page like this one [1], including warnings as well. Please posses some Editorial etiquette. - Humaliwalay (talk) 09:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Humaliwalay. Thank you.Codf1977 (talk) 09:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Sunni Islam

How do I verify this? "The Qur'an states that 'Laa yamassuhu illal Mutahharun' (No one can touch it save the pure) but in it is stated in multiple verdicts of Sunni Scholars that the Chapter of the Quraan Al-Fateha (The Opening) can be written with urine.

• Fatmaada Aalamgeer Vol.5, Page 134.
• Fatwa Siraajiya, Page 75.
• http://www.answering-ansar.org/challenges/100questions/fatawa_siraajiya_p75.jpg

Who is saying that the Chapter of the Quraan Al-Fateha (The Opening) can be written with urine? Where is this mentioned?--AllahLovesYou (talk) 05:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You yourself have also mentioned the Fatwas of Sunni Scholars above, with clear citation of Volume and Page Number, if you want to have it online then refer the link which is also pasted by you in above message they have copy of that verdict posted in Urdu. - Humaliwalay (talk) 05:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand you, how can I verify this information as a Wikipedia reader? What makes you think I can speak or understand Urdu? This is an English version of Wikipedia so you must use English sources.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 06:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Then you may go and read the English version, how do you verify Bukhari and Quraan from english right?? - Humaliwalay (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Then you may go and read the English version, how do you verify Bukhari and Quraan from english right?? - Humaliwalay (talk) 06:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it is your duty as an editor to provide the references in a way for us readers to verify the information. You see how I cited all my edits? If you are unable to do this then we as editors too have permission to remove such unverfiable information from the article.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't act childish, the English translation is provided on www.answering-ansar.org please refer that or visit directly here [2] the question number 60 which is the translated version of this verdict in English, hope you can verify now. - Humaliwalay (talk) 06:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

3rr

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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; read about 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 you being blocked from editing—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

May I know who has given me this warning?? and Where have I engaged in Edit war?? It would be appreciated if there is signature. - Humaliwalay (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop removing citation needed tags

You removed citation needed tags from Criticism of Sunni Islam after I warned you not to do so. If you keep it up you will be reported and possibly blocked. It makes no sense for you to do that. You created the article [3] and made claims but it's your duty to provider reliable sources which mentions those who criticise Sunni Islam. If you can't do this I'll nominate the article for deletion. Who is criticising Sunni Islam?--AllahLovesYou (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Criticism of Sunni Islam

You may also wish to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Criticism of Sunni Islam, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Entire article appears like it's based on a strong POV of the creator of this article, User:Humaliwalay. I've done online searches and cannot find any sources that mention "Criticism of Sunni Islam". I think it qualifies under G-1 Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. The citations in the article are unverfiable, except the first 3 which I added but are not related to "Criticism of Sunni Islam".

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. AllahLovesYou (talk) 05:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Final Warning

This is your final warning with relation to maintenance templates, please make sure you fully understand what they are used for before you add or remove any more. Your actions are disruptive. I suggest that if you wish to have a tag added or removed you ask an admin or other editor for help and advice first. Codf1977 (talk) 07:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that after the repeated warnings and explanations of why your edits with maintenance templates are problematic that this is no longer an issue of making mistakes, and is deliberate vandalism. Any further misuse of tags (adding or removing) will result in a block. -- Atama頭 21:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of vandalism

I have never accused you of vandalism, however I agree with Atama assessment of your actions. In addition to my comments above, please refrain from accusing, either on talk page or via an edit summary any other editor of vandalism unless it is undeniably that - if you fail to heed this final warning it could also lead to a block for violating the WP:AGF policy. Codf1977 (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

Humaliwalay, I've blocked you for 24 hours. This is intended as a "pay attention to what other editors are telling you" block, because you appear to either not have read or to not have understood what Codf1977 (talk) has repeatedly been trying to explain, nor have you paid the slightest bit of attention to the final warning Codf1977 and Atama (talk) gave you (two threads directly above this one).

Codf1977 suggested (above) that you seek advice before adding or removing further maintenance tags, yet here you did precisely that - you removed a {{dubious}} tag from a claim that the Chapter of the Quraan Al-Fateha (The Opening) can be written with urine.

Here you removed a {{citation needed}} without providing a reference to support the claim. You did the same here, though I'll acknowledge that the first of the two tags was likely correctly removed after you had edited the article (the same does not apply, in my view, to the second tag, which I feel you incorrectly removed).

Here you simply broke a {{quote}} - I'm not sure why, and it's entirely possibly it was a genuine mistake, but I do feel that if you were taking your time, and being less hasty about removing tags, mistakes like this would be far less likely to occur.

Here you removed a {{synth}} tag from the article. I have to say that I regard the article as very problematic - indeed, I raised the issue of this article at the Administrators' noticeboard for Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts yesterday, in part due to the reasons indicated by the tag.

When your block expires: slow down. Listen to advice. Seek advice from other editors. Do not edit war over tags. Discuss issues on the article's talk page. TFOWR 08:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You are completely Biased, prejudiced and one sided without listening to entire dispute in this regards of blocking me, user Codf1977 was disrupting articles removing warnings from talk page and not paying heed to request siding with biased editor Allahlovesyou, I think you are the sock-puppet of Codf1977, well I don't mind, I will keep editing what's truth. Dubious tag nowhere suits the statement of Urine because it has been reference by the verdicts of 2 renowned Scholars, if you refute reference how come you claim to be an editor. How come there can be dubious tag when 2 references are cited. - Humaliwalay (talk) 08:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If despite being with references Criticism of Sunni Islam is regarded as problematic article by you, then why is Criticism of Twelver Shiism article existing on Wikipedia?? - Humaliwalay (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Humaliwalay, I forgot to mention above: you can request an unblock using the {{unblock}} template. Add {{unblock|Replace this part with why you think you should be unblocked}} at the bottom of this page. TFOWR 08:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I will not request unblock as it was unjustly done, I will rather wait for expiry and start editing what's truth?? Thanks for the unjust block, however that will not deter me from composing the truth. - Humaliwalay (talk) 09:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Just so I can be clear, how many WP editors do you think are my Socks since this is now the second time you have accused me ? 08:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Humaliwalay, while you're blocked have a read of WP:TRUTH - it may help explain part of the problem here. In short, Wikipedia relies on verifiability, not truth. You may know something to be true, but other editors and readers won't necessarily have access to the same information you do. For that reason you need to provide references from reliable sources. When you don't do this, information you add may well be removed at worse, or tagged with {{citation needed}} at best. Edit warring over this won't help, and will likely result in you being blocked again. What you need to do is collaborate - work with - other editors to solve the problems. Removing tags and edit warring to reinstate unverifiable information is not the answer. This is an encyclopaedia, not a game, and fighting is never the solution. Likewise, accusing good faith editors of sock puppeting is also never the solution. And in this case (accusing me of being Codf1977's sock puppet) it's frankly ludicrous, and in no way helps your cause. TFOWR 10:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

What I said about you was pertinent to your unjust and biased treatment, not to help my cause had if it been the case I would requested a review on my block which I did not do. So relax and do not threaten me to block again. You believe yourself as good faith Editor well your biased treatments do not prove you so.Humaliwalay (talk) 10:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh, I haven't threatened to block you - I have blocked you. If you have a problem with that, you can request an {{unblock}}. If you'd prefer to wait until your block expires you can raise the block at the Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents once your block expires. I believe I've provided all the information necessary for you to understand why you were blocked. If that isn't the case you can use the {{helpme}} tag to request further assistance from other editors. I don't intend to post here again. TFOWR 10:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all you are not a good reader forget about being a good editor you provided reasons you think rather in fact the reason was not proper like Here here I did not delete a quote rather I fixed it because the reference number was reflecting below line of the text. Secondly why I said you are a bad reader because I said do not threaten me to block again, hope you understand the meaning of again in English, this was with regards to your statement like this "Edit warring over this won't help, and will likely result in you being blocked again." Thirdly if, you do not wish to post here again then get out from here and leave me at peace, I have not invited you to hang around here, because your faith is not good and hence you are not good faith editor. Humaliwalay (talk) 10:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of 19 September 2010 Baghdad attacks for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article 19 September 2010 Baghdad attacks, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/19 September 2010 Baghdad attacks until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Codf1977 (talk) 07:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Sunni Islam

As per my posts above about accusing other editors of vandalism you have done it again with this edit. Please amend the post to remove that unfounded accusation. Codf1977 (talk) 07:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I provided evidence of AllahLovesYou doing major blanking here [4]. This is not accusation rather its reporting of error with evidence. - Humaliwalay (talk) 07:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read wp:VAND, you may disagree with the action it was NOT vandalism, please ammend. Codf1977 (talk) 08:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Please refer this [5], the first type of Vandalism is Blanking which states as follows:

Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense. Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary.

An example of blanking edits that could be legitimate would be edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person. Wikipedia is especially concerned about providing accurate and non-biased information on the living, and this may be an effort to remove inaccurate or biased material. Due to the possibility of unexplained good-faith content removal, Hello, I'm [[User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}]]. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User talk:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|my talk page]]. Thanks! or Hello, I'm Codf1977. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks., as appropriate, should normally be used as initial warnings for ordinary content removals not involving any circumstances that would merit stronger warnings.

AllahLovesYou did major blanking here [6] and was even warned by me I even requested him here [7] for avoiding any changes without any reason and user's response was not healthy here [8] along with this warning was also deleted here [9]. - Humaliwalay (talk) 08:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You are dammed by your own post - he gave his reasons, you may disagree with them, but like it or not it was NOT vandalism. Please stop trying to defend your actions and please just amend your post. Codf1977 (talk) 08:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No reason for blanking here [10] and no reason for blanking again here complete blanking [11] One of the reasons provided was this (Sunnis make up 90% of Islam so this article should just be merged with "Criticism of Islam". In other words, Islam is basically Sunnis with a minority who call themselves Shias.) and another one here [12] accusation of messy editing and nonsense editing. Where is the good faith [13]?? take some rest if you deem accusations and reason out of the topic as reasons. - Humaliwalay (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes he did - read the edit sum - has his reasons - again you may not like them or they not be valid, however that does not make them vandalism. Codf1977 (talk) 08:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You are not going to listen and like to dam me for everything, I have provided evidence like above and am not interested in arguing now by posting evidences as I have already done. User posted a related content which replaced the article after blanking here [14]. there was no reason for blanking, and blanking without reason is Vandalism read again the edit sum - Humaliwalay (talk) 08:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Understanding of WP policies

It is clear that you have a issue with understanding a number of WP policies, just because someone points them out to you does not mean they are not acting in good faith, both points are valid, you do not understand WP:VAND and are taking a WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT approach to that and if you had followed advice and ammended your comments my comment would have not been necessary.

Again I strongly recommend that you seek advice from others about your actions as if you do not you are likely to find you are blocked again. Codf1977 (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)