User talk:Wassimsaade

A tag has been placed on Shaykh Abdullah al-Harariyy, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. If you plan to add more material to the article, I advise you to do so immediately. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

An article that is nothing but a weblink, or is primarily links elsewhere, is not acceptable in Wikipedia. Fan-1967 01:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

A tag has been placed on Shaykh Abdullah al-Harariyy, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

The issue is that the article does not tell us anything about the person. He is head of an organization, but nothing tells us anything about the organization. You have provided links elsewhere instead of actual article content, and Wikipedia is not a collection of links elsewhere. Fan-1967 01:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove tags

When you add {{hangon}}, please do not remove existing tags. Thank you. Fan-1967 01:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The project's content policies require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints. Please bear this in mind when making edits such as your recent edit to Al-Ahbash. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. PXK ^T /_C 23:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't make changes Al-Ahbash without discussing it..

It is not about the Wahabis' perspective. It is about Wikipedia's neutral point of view. The version which you see on Al-Ahbash is way NEUTRAL. As you don't see some POV's like this one. Thanks. McKhan (talk) 05:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to use Anti-Wahabi in Al-Ahbash page then, sooner or later, there might be tug-of-war between Al-Ahbash and Wahabi proponents. Wahabis and Al-Ahbash are entitle to have their POVs. However, Wikipedia is all about NPOV. And the current version achieves that goal. McKhan (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Al-Ahbash. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Blocked

Virtually your entire edit history is reverts. That suggests that you are a sockpuppet, and even if you are not then you are a disruptive editor, so this account is indefinitely blocked. Here's the standard message with other instructions and notes:

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Guy (Help!) 21:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wassimsaade (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I didn't delete any content or modify any content. I added a sentence from NPOV reference at the bottom of the page that gives the reader the neutral opinion of a study made by the American university of Beirut. I faced a wave of deletions without discussions from IP addresses that trace back to Pakistan. I don't understand why I'm wrongfully blocked. I urge you to compare the versions and see what I've changed. I would like an arbitrator to verify if what I've added is verifiable or not.Thanks

Decline reason:

edit-warring is counter-productive regardless of its merits. Feeling that you're right is not a substitute for consensus-building. You made dozens of reverts on that article within a very short timespan, when at most three reverts per day are tolerated (tolerated, to some extent, even 3RR does not mean that you can revert blindly 3 times per day). During the edit war, how many times did you attempt to discuss the issue? The answer is ZERO, you haven't made a single edit to article's talk page. Such behaviour clearly constitutes disruptive editing. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 04:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

.

{{unblock|I've learned more about how wikipedia works and I intend to stay away from edit wars.}}

I am running this by Guy to see what he thinks ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK ... Guy's on break. I'll take the chance and give you one myself. Daniel Case (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Since you seem sincere, you get this chance

Request handled by: Daniel Case (talk) 02:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]