User talk:Emir of Wikipedia: Difference between revisions

Doc Love

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Doc_Love

How do you vote? Peter Andrew Nolan (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Peter Andrew Nolan: You just write '''Keep''' or '''Delete''' and give a reason why. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. I saw you edits. They seemed unusual. If you are not voting to keep or delete the page, it makes it casts doubt on your sincerity in trying to improve the page. Are you going to vote, or not? Peter Andrew Nolan (talk) 10:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

If the article is notable then I want it be improved to the best it can be, but if it's not notable then I want it to be deleted. However I don't want it to be deleted because it's a messy and confusing article which doesn't make the notability clear if the subject is notable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The notorious type of notable subjects are only worthy of note if notriety is established. Otherwise why make them famous? But this particular subject is legendary. He does not need a Wikipedia article to promote himself. Stalin was a schizoid psychopath, yet everyone knows who Stalin was. Not everyone knows that he was a schizoid psychopath. Peter Andrew Nolan (talk) 11:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

So what are you trying to say? That we should delete the page for Doc Love as he is too legendary and doesn't need promotion? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I am saying, that LYING would only promote the subject even further. Instead of establishing notoriety honorably, some of the editors who do not like the subject, tried to defame Doc Love by putting a spin on his philosophy. An in-depth fact check would expose jaundiced journalism in their approach. I do not consider that to be "critical analysis" - lying. This person is very persuasive and he guards his reputation with his life. Before you express criticism, you should give an accurate and fair depiction of what it is you find fault with.2607:FB90:1E06:637D:0:3C:3594:5F01 (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I never said I found fault, nor did I lie intentionally. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The question was, is Emir of Wikipedia going to vote to keep or delete the page. If you are not voting to keep or delete the page, it casts doubt on your sincerity in trying to improve the page.

Your edits look like you were trying to make the page appear worse, so it would be deleted. Nice try trying to wriggle out of answering the question.2607:FB90:1E06:637D:0:3C:3594:5F01 (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@2607:FB90:1E06:637D:0:3C:3594:5F01:My edits are making the page better not worse. If it's deleted it's because it's not a notable page, the quality of the article is irrelevant. And you're the one who wriggled out of my question above. Why are you suddenly jumping into my discussion with another editor now? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

What's your point? The Doc Love article was inaccurate. I wanted it to be deleted. While waiting for it to be deleted I used Wikipedia as a sandbox to write an accurate version of Doc Love for personal use. I outwitted Wikipedians, making you think I am a supporter of Doc Love. Do you know Smartyllama?2607:FB90:1E03:77F9:0:47:78FC:3501 (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? That's not what you're supposed to use Wikipedia for. And you were making the article worse, not better. Which makes me wonder if you were doing that to get it deleted, given your admission. Smartyllama (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

No actually Emir of Wikipedia was making the article worse to get it deleted. I was making it better so after it's deleted I would have an accurate version. So you two are cronies? And by the way, Emir of Wikipedia moved "What's your point? The Doc Love article was inaccurate. I wanted it to be deleted. While waiting for it to be deleted I used Wikipedia as a sandbox to write an accurate version of Doc Love for personal use. I outwitted Wikipedians, making you think I am a supporter of Doc Love. Do you know Smartyllama?" from the Ireland conversation, taking my reply to his preceding comment there out of context. Which makes me wonder if you two are trying to cover something up. 2607:FB90:1E03:77F9:0:47:78FC:3501 (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: What does this look like? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I was not trying to make the article worse so that it gets deleted. My edits were on making the article better. Furthermore the quality of an article is irrelevant to whether it is deleted or not, but rather the notability is the important factor. I moved the comment to the more relevant section as stated in my edit summary. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I know you were trying. I also know you can't succeed if your logic is contradictory: Emir of Wikipedia says "My edits were on making the article better." Emir of Wikipedia also says "the quality of an article is irrelevant" (for whatever reason.) I make articles better because I care about quality and 'accuracy. So thanks for ruining the article after I finished my professional version. Anyway Wikipedia is a pyramid scam. The founder of Wikipedia loves the free lunch, making all of you do all the work for him for free. Would be contributors need to be aware of how they are being used as pawns by senior editors. Wikipedia policy should be to protect the work of those Wikipedians who are doing most of the work to create Wikipedia articles. But it's not. 2607:FB90:1E03:77F9:0:47:78FC:3501 (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

My logic is not contradictory. Wikipedia articles aren't deleted because of poor quality but due to a lack of notability. I never ruined the article, and I don't remember you presenting a professional one. Wikipedia is not a pyramid scam. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Crown Prince Hussein

Please stop reverting the infobox. We have a royalty infobox for a reason, and as Hussein is a crown prince, the royalty infobox should be used on his page. His education is mentioned within the article, so it's not necessary to replace the infobox with the standard person infobox just to include this information. Piratesswoop (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Piratesswoop: I am not replacing it with standard infobox but embedding it a module so all information is easily available to the reader. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

You should probably change your username

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Emir of Wikipedia", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it gives the incorrect impression that the account may be officially affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation or one of its projects. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. —swpb^T 14:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Swpb: Please see my archive. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I see opinions both ways (and Ed is frankly wrong), so the name is clearly controversial. The fact that multiple people have independently complained should be impetus enough. You may be required to change it, but even if you are not, it would be a very, very good idea to do so: it costs you nothing and will settle the matter for good. —swpb^T 17:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, however as Ed is not only a Wikimedia Foundation's Communications department but also an admin I will stand by his judgment unless I am required to change it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not satisfied with the infallibility of admins, so I've asked for broader input here. —swpb^T 18:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem. We'll see what the comments say. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

You don't accept the doctrine of administrator infallibility? No cookies for you, then. Seriously, the user name "Emir of Wikipedia" isn't likely to fool anyone into thinking we actually have such an office. Jonathunder (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Whoa now, let's not bring my job into this. My determination there—which I still hold—is in my volunteer capacity only. Quote: "Edits, statements, or other contributions made from my volunteer account (this one) are mine alone and do not reflect the views of my employer. I am first and foremost a Wikipedian, and I still have my own personal thoughts and opinions about the movement." Thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for bringing your job into this, I only meant to highlight that you are probably very knowledgeable about Wikipedia. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:RFC/N closed

Hello, Emir of Wikipedia. The result of this discussion was to allow your username. The discussion has now been closed. If you would like to see what concerns were raised, you can find a link to the discussion in the archive. You do not need to change your username. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the cookies!

Yum. I'm a new user. What wikipedia knowledge should I know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satkinson3 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Satkinson3: You should take a look at the links I sent you, and remember to sign your comments. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Ashura

Hello, Emir of Wikipedia -- As you can see, I have completed a copy-edit of Ashura. I did the best I could. I hope you'll read through the article and check to be sure I did not introduce any errors in content. Just a few concerns:

1) I notice that the word "Shia" appears in two forms throughout the article: "Shia" and "Shi'a". There needs to be some consistency. I think you have two choices:

(a) Make all of them "Shia" or all of them "Shi'a", or

(b) Make the first one "Shi'a" and all the rest "Shia" (easier for Western readers). It's really your choice, but the one thing you don't want is going back and forth between the two spellings.

2) I saw quite a few different spellings for "Husayn". Since I saw "Husayn" first, I tried to make all of them conform to that spelling. There may be a few that do not have that spelling, particularly in links that I left alone. (I think the spelling in a link should probably reflect the spelling of the title of the linked article.) You may want to check to see of those few could be changed to "Husayn". Related to this, I believe "b." may be an abbreviation for "Ibn". I'm not sure I would use "b." as an abbreviation without explaining or giving the complete name next to it at least once. Not every reader will know what "b." stands for.

3) There were several sentences that were ungrammatical. I fixed a few of those, but there were a few more that I could not be sure what was intended, so I left them for you to fix. I'm trying to find them now (most were toward the end of the article). Here is one. It is near the end of Ashura#Violence during Ashura:

• Khusrin said all the Shia mourners who were detained were to be charged under Section 12 of the Selangor Syariah Criminal Enactment 1995 which are insulting, rejecting, or dispute the violation of the instructions set out and given a fatwa by the Salafi religious authorities. ABNA.

4) The section Ashura#Significance for Sunni Muslims could be better organized. There also seems to be some repetition. For example, you mention Muhammad's seeing the Jews marking the 10th day of the month at least twice, if not three times.

5) Near the beginning of the section Ashura#Commemoration of the death of Husayn ibn Ali, you have two images, one on the left and one on the right, at the same height. At 100% and 110% screen resolution, this appears all right, but at higher resolutions the text between them becomes squeezed into a narrow column. I'm wondering if you would consider moving one of the two images to lower down in the section or moving the left-hand image from to the right, so both images are on the right.

I'd be glad to re-read the article once you have worked on it a bit more. Just let me know.  – Corinne (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

6) In the second paragraph in the Ashura#Etymology section, you mention Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani. I don't understand why you change "Gilani" to "Jilani" after the pipe. I see in the linked article that the name is Al-Jilani in Arabic, but he was Persian. Are you using "J" because some or all of his writings were published under "Al-Jilani" rather than "Gilani"? Or was he primarily known under the Arabic version of his name? If not, why not use the Persian form? I'm just curious.  – Corinne (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Corinne: I didn't write the who article; I requested a copy edit for it. I'll make sure to bring up this problem at the talk page though. I personally think it should be "Al-Jilani" if that's what matches his page. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Thank you for your reply (but I don't quite follow your first sentence). The title of the linked article shows "Gilani".  – Corinne (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Corinne: Sorry, I meant to write whole not who. The linked article is entitled Gilani, but it appears to be inconsistent. Thanks for your help copyediting the article anyway. I might have to raise this issue on the Gilani page too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Edits to the article entitled: Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud

Dear Emir of Wikipedia,

I am surprised that you found the version I edited to be "good". Three of the four sentences I removed all link to the same NYT news article. The NYT has a track record (if you check their archives) of criticizing Saudi Arabia, albeit in a rather subtle manner. For example, this is a paragraph from the same article: "Others have been popular. After Prince bin Salman called for more entertainment options for families and young people, who often flee the country on their vacations, the cabinet passed regulations restricting the powers of the religious police. An Entertainment Authority he established has planned its first activities, which include comedy shows, pro wrestling events and monster truck rallies."

Notice the use of the word "flee". The definition of "flee" according to Merriam-Webster is: to run away from danger. It carries a negative charge. People flee danger; no one flees on vacation. This is but one example of the subtle use of words by the NYT in attempting to influence its reader's biases and perceptions. I believe Wikipedia should be a source of information free from political undertones associated with journalism. Wikipedia should be a source of facts backed by evidence, and free from propaganda and political score-settling.

The Independent on the other hand, is not so subtle in its coverage of Saudi Arabia. It is clearly and heavily biased against Saudi Arabia. And no person should take its coverage of Saudi Arabia as neutral or even factually correct. These sentences, as they stand, impart a biased, negative account of the subject which is not proven to be true. In the interest of keeping Wikipedia articles as a reliable source of accurate information, I hope you would reconsider those recent changes.

Regards, Himura Kenshin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himura Kenshin (talk • contribs) 15:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Himura Kenshin: If you truly believe this then put it on the talk page of the article and my talkpage. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Thank you

Thank you for accepting the request and moving the Page 'Empire loyalism' to 'Imperial loyalism' — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamKingstonCox (talk • contribs) 10:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Radio Cairo is another thing and currently redirects to Voice of Arabs

Dear Emir. You reverted my edit which aimed at deleting the wrong redirect of Radio Cairo to Voice of the Arabs. Both are different radio stations and can't redirect to the same page. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 11:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mahmudmasri: Do you have any proof for this? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

If this is an appropriate response, then you ought to have asked, did user:Trust Is All You Need have proof that they are the same station to create the redirect from the first place?

Check the official website of the Egyptian Radio and Television Union. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 11:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mahmudmasri: I did not ask user:Trust Is All You Need, and this proof should be given on the deletion discussion not here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Then why haven't you opened the discussion? --Mahmudmasri (talk) 11:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mahmudmasri: Too late it was a recently recreated redirect so it's been closed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Galala city

Thank you Emir for your message

We can help togather

Best regards

Kurdistantolive (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Kurdistantolive: I'll try. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

GREAT Kurdistantolive (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Dubai Airport problem

I removed the template bacause there was a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.61.145.18 (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

You removed an image not a template, and what was the mistake? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for welcome

Thanks, will have to think about creating a new account. I have much prior experience with Wikipedia in the past, but if my talk post that you mentioned leads to positive things, as these are the kind of topics I have been heavily discouraged against aiding previously, I may decide it might be helpful to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.162.33.175 (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments by IP:2607:FB90:1E03:77F9:0:47:78FC:3501

Emir of Wikipedia, Please don't edit, as you did with this edit to Abu Bakr. You specifically removed this portion of the article in an edit war fashion: The Shia Muslims do not acknowledge him as the first Muslim Caliph as he is not a direct descendant of Muhammad; they however believe that Ali was the rightful successor and that Abu Bakr took the caliphate in a coup d'état. Furthermore, I would like you to specifically show me evidence of purposeful and blatant harassment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bindhu Pamarthi. It is you, who voted to delete Bindhu Pamarthi, simply because I voted to keep it, which constitutes not only blatant harassment, but callous disregard for the subject.2607:FB90:1E03:77F9:0:47:78FC:3501 (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

(Presumably) You said on the deletion page that I had a "personal grudge". I don't and so that was either purposeful and blatant harassment or the words of a complete fool. My edits on Abu Bakr were just to fix it, that portion is not needed in the lead. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I see WP:HARASSMENT unwittingly abused far too often; Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior.... Quite pertinent to remember a single incident does not constitute harassment. Although I have to ask what this is; The founder of Wikipedia loves the free lunch, making us do all the work for him for free. We need to be aware of how we are being used as pawns by businessmen to promote themselves. We also need to be aware of our staying power in the big chess game of consumerism. I'd like the IP to explain themselves, who are you referring to? and are you aware that Emir of Wikipedia is not an authority figure on this site? This seems far more an NPA than anything else. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I abused it, but this IP appears to be from the same source as another IP. They basically confirmed they were the same person above. They are totally aware that I'm not an authority figure on this site. It probably is WP:NPA. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that they are blaming you for Wikipedia's problems and feeding off of society as a whole. I'd call that a firm WP:NPA attack on your character. Consider yourself warned 2607:..., we don't allow abuse of other editors - whether you disagree with them or not - on this site. Please be mindful of other editors, they are humans as well, not just robots opposite a screen. Emir, don't worry about the HARASS thing too much. I can't comment on the lede change as I am unfamiliar with the subject, the fact that there is a {{citation needed}} tag on it is telling though. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, you are jumping the gun. Use respect! First of all, I did not see this conversation. I couldn't easily see the conversation after Emir of Wikipedia has changed the title. You chose to escalate the dispute with threats, rather than wait for a reply. I am not as available as you Wikipedians. So your question is, what is The founder of Wikipedia loves the free lunch, making us do all the work for him for free. We need to be aware of how we are being used as pawns by businessmen to promote themselves. We also need to be aware of our staying power in the big chess game of consumerism.. It has nothing to do with Emir of Wikipedia. It relates to Bindhu Pamarthi's platform in 2013, which was called Blind Consumerism. In 2014 Bindhu Pamarthi has narrowed it down to blind consumerism in the cosmetics industry. I used Wikipedia as an example of blind consumerism to support my vote to keep the article. Emir of Wikipedia voted to delete 2 days after I wrote the excerpt you are citing. I had no idea he would even show up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bindhu Pamarthi. Mr rnddude, what kind of an encyclopedia editor are you, if you don't even know that Shia Muslims do not acknowledge Abu Bakr as the first Muslim Caliph. That's half of the Muslim world. I like Abu Bakr. But encyclopedia articles have to be neutral. You have to be really clueless to ignore that someone who chooses a name Emir of Wikipedia does not have delusiins of taking over Wikipedia and using it for emirati propaganda. Emir means chieftain. Basically he is implying that he is going to be the head honcho on Wikipedia. I don't like people who either pretend to be what they are not, like Emir of Wikipedia or do not qualify for a position of authority, like Mr rnddude. I firmly reject your behavior, but you both owe me an apology for false allegations. To be an encyclopedia editor you must have some general knowledge, you must have erudition. Mr rnddude can't even research before he makes an accusation. I did not address Emir of Wikipedia in the comment you cited, and I did not harass him. He was not helping Wikipedia by voting to delete a page simply because I voted to keep it. He knows nothing about Bindhu Pamarthi, and his edit to Abu Bakr article was uninformed as well. That constitutes a pattern. You said it yourself. Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior... I added {{citation needed}} to Abu Bakr because it is a universally known fact, but it still requires reference. I warned Emir to look for citations such as this one rather than vandalize Wikipedia. 2607:FB90:1E08:B906:0:47:7974:4001 (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I never vandalised. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Denying something doesn't make it an untruth if there is evidence to support the claim. This is not a Wikipedia article." I understand that Wikipedia is a collective effort -- dumber together. However, this is a talk page. I mean what I say, and I say what I mean. My words are not a collectivist project. Don't put words in my mouth that I never said. If we were to talk face to face, could you change my words? Because I think there is a misunderstanding due to absence of body language. So I am willing to take a vacation to wherever you are at, probably United Emirates and explain my position to you. The sooner -- the better. I am not an IT guy. I am more into sports, so you have an obvious advantage here. Unfortunately, now that Donald Trump won, you might not be able to visit me in the United States. As I understand it, the Irish community in United Emirates is only a few thousand. You don't have to give away personal information here.2607:FB90:1E08:B906:0:47:7974:4001 (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

[W]hat kind of an encyclopedia editor are you, if you don't even know that Shia Muslims do not acknowledge Abu Bakr as the first Muslim Caliph. That's half of the Muslim world. A non-Muslim? for example. I didn't say I didn't know Shia Muslim's don't acknowledge Abu Bakr, I said I don't know enough about the topic to give my personal thoughts. Note, I specified the "whole lede" not a single thing and further, citations are not supposed to be found in the lede but in the body of an article. The lede is a summary of the article and thus does not need to be cited. You have to be really clueless to ignore that someone who chooses a name Emir of Wikipedia does not have delusiins of taking over Wikipedia and using it for emirati propaganda, No. I'd have to have no respect for the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia in order to assume bad faith on the part of Emir, which incidentally, is what you are doing - apparently now also against myself as well, oh well. I also know what an Emir is, thanks and no that does not mean he intends to be the head honcho of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is based in the U.S. where Emir's are not acknowledged. Further, if they had tried to take control of Wikipedia they would have been blocked and forced to change their name at the very least. qualify for a position of authority, like Mr rnddude - I'm not in a position of authority, but, basic research would have told you this... I think you're in no position to comment on my own research skills. Mr rnddude can't even research before he makes an accusation, that said, what precisely do you want me to research? the discussion on Bindhu Pamarthi is closed and I have no impact on the close discussion. I am a disinterested third party, your vote on the page looked like an attack on Emir. Since you've clarified that it was not, you can feel free to disregard my warning on WP:NPA. I firmly reject your behavior, but you both owe me an apology for false allegations - I don't owe you anything, I have neither attacked nor insulted you. You, on the other hand have done both. Warnings can be repealed when new information comes to light, just for future reference. The community has decided to delete the article, for whatever reason, what you can do is start a new draft, build it from the ground up, and then propose it for creation. I also have to do this if I want to add content to the encyclopaedia. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: false allegations are a class apart from insults. An insult is stating something that is true in a straightforward manner, without decorum. Know the difference between insult and epithet! Your false allegations such as your warning about my vote to keep Bindhu Pamarthi being a personal attack on emir, and emirs warning about harassment after my reply to him in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bindhu Pamarthi were both proven false in the course of this conversation. 1. Doc Love article edit war with me - a more knowledgeable contributor. 2. Abu Bakr -- emir vandalizes Abu Bakr by removing The Shia Muslims do not acknowledge him as the first Muslim Caliph as he is not a direct descendant of Muhammad; they however believe that Ali was the rightful successor and that Abu Bakr took the caliphate in a coup d'état. I've seen citations in the lead. I am a non-Muslim. 3. Bindhu Pamarthi. He voted to delete merely because I voted to keep 2 days after I wrote the excerpt you are citing - it doesn't require basic research to see, it only requires one to be able to see. I had no idea he would even show up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bindhu Pamarthi. In my comment (I wanted to type he is following me around and contradicting me, but the prediction mode on my mobile device typed contacting. I was pissed off at the time because Bindhu Pamarthi is innocent and has nothing to do with Doc Love or Abu Bakr.) Who is guilty of blatant harassment here? If you had no authority rnddude, emir wouldn't have called you to "resolve the dispute". Snitch! Earning digital medals and experience abusing Wikipedia law enforcement puts you in a position of relative authority - don'the be coy. Control can be exerted subtly, and Emir of Wikipedia has delusiins of taking over Wikipedia and using it for emirati propaganda through first passing apprenticeship by learning everything there is to know about the instructions - how to abuse warnings, submit material for deletion that you don't agree with, and so on... I must say he is overzealous ... and then exerting influence. And if that's what you want to do emir -- fine. But don't vandalize my contributions as you did with Doc Love. And mens rights does not mean generalizing all females as bad as you did with Bindhu Pamarthi! Why do you snitch on me to Mr rnddude? Get a job at a real encyclopedia.2607:FB90:1E0A:4EE6:0:30:F809:8501 (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

References

November 2016

Hello, I'm Richi. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, 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. Thank you! ... richi (hello) 10:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Richi: Can we bring up this issue on the talk page, please? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

"We" already have ... richi (hello) 13:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Mohammed bin Rashid C Class

Hiya

I'm not sure I'm qualified! Personally I'd go for B class as it stands. Maybe MaterialScientist would be better suited?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Materialscientist

Cheers! Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

If you're talking about Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, then I can tell you that this article fails to satisfy the B1 criterion. Also, the article is still rated as a Start-class. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

We are talking about that. It is still rated as a start class, because I don't want to change the rating without consulting a more experienced editor. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I figured after I saw the message you pinged me in to Materialscientist. As a heads up, if it fits the B2-5 criteria then it is a C-class article. I contend that it fails the B1 criteria as each paragraph must have at least one citation to cover everything within that paragraph, more than that may be required if there is synthesis between several sources. E.g. the first two paragraphs and the last paragraph of "Business career" are in need of a citation, and the last sentence of the third paragraph also needs a citation. There are several instances of this elsewhere in the article as well. If you have citations for those sections it may push the article into the realm of B-class. However, I cannot comment on B2 as I am unfamiliar with the subject. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)