Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:15, 27 March 2014

Welcome!

Hello, Ftutocdg, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Getting Started
• Introduction to Misplaced Pages
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! JohnCD (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Qutbi Bohra

I have declined your speedy deletion nominations, as have two other administrators before me. Speedy deletion is only carried out for the restricted list of reasons at WP:CSD, and none of the reasons you have given are applicable. If you think this article should be deleted, you should nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion. JohnCD (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I have nominated the article qutbi bohra for deletion. I hope you will show same courtesy to my edits.Mufaddalqn (talk) 06:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mufaddalqn,

The artcile was already nominated twice for deletion and didn't reached consensus.

I never made ​​offensive changes for Mufaddal Saifuddin. Just trying to keep it neutral. : My recent edit has been misunderstood. I have no interest conflict with the both claimants.

Regards, Ftutocdg (talk) 06:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Accidental removal of hidden comment

Hi, just a heads-up, when you made this edit, you removed the following hidden comment from the page: <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->. You should have added your entry underneath that comment. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Changing your own comments on Talk pages

I'm trying to clean up the Qutbi Bohra Talk page. It's a real mess of overwritten, unsigned, and changed edits by various users. When I'm done please take a look at it and verify that I have not inadvertantly changed anything you contributed. And please read WP:REDACT before modifying comments you have previously made to Talk pages. It's very confusing when you insert comments into the middle of something you have previously posted. Meters (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I see you were actually inserting your comments into someone else's posting. Don't do that. It becomes impossible for anyone to follow the discussion or even to figure out which user added which comments. Meters (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I've finished cleaning up the Talk page. Please check that i have not made any mistakes. Meters (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

File a dispute against Qutbi Bohra article

Qutbi Bohra article is clearly a pre planned strategy to seperate the camp of khuzaima from dawoodi bohra and give them another name. Khuzaima has not yet claimed formation of seperate sect . Only his rivals want him to form a separate sect.

Hence please file a dispute to delete the article as that article has been written under the coordination of Jamea Saifiya as a pre planned strategy to alienate khuzaima from dawoodi bohra and deprive him of all the assets. Dispute filing link:

=overtagging

You're overtagging. For example, the tag fiction is for articles about books, etc. which spend too much time on the plot. The infobox is not removed when the material is unsourced--if it is sourced in the test it is enough, if not a cite tag can be used for material you think wrong. References to possibly dubious sites should be removed only after discussion and consensus. When there are problems with sourcing or the whole article, there is no point tagging each section for it also. I think it is clear from you talk p. and AfD discussion that you have a clear personal conflict of interest here, and would do well not to make changes of this sort. Someone has already reverted your changes, but if not, I might have done so also. DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I see you reverted the other party;'s changes. I restored them, but added the tags I think appropriate. If you continue to remove them, you are likely to be blocked for edit warring. The issues have to be discussed, and you will need to get some neutral party to help. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

This is your only warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Mufaddal Saifuddin. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 19:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

WOW ! I've NEVER vandalised this article. Just done minor corrections. Overzealous? Ftutocdg (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• My apologies - it was a glitch in the program that I use to manage vandalism. I take full responsibility. Warning revoked and happy editing Ftutocdg. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 21:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for removing vandalism from Mufaddal Saifuddin Article as both are still claimants and many biased elements are trying to take sides Summichum (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Repeated undoing of sincere editing attempts

This is with regards of your repeatedly undoing attempts by many editors, including myself, to remove the word "claimant" from the lead of the article "Mufaddal Saifuddin". Your actions have been justified by the edit summery "stop disturbing : Mufaddal Saifuddin and Khuzaima Qutbuddin are both claimants for the office of 53rd Dai. It's a fact.".

By the reason you state, it is correct to say the the holder of any office, claims to hold that office as well. Without such a claim, the holding of the office is invalid. For instance, the security guard of my building, is the claimant of that post as well. Ditto for Muhammad being a Prophet of God. However, in practise, we don't attach the word "claimant" to who is generally accepted to be the holder of that office. For example the statement "Barack Obama is the claimant of the presidency of the United States" is a stupid statement. Rather, the statement "Barack Obama is the president of the United States" is accepted to be true, and is considered a fact.

Now, as it has been made clear in various media publications, Dawoodi Bohra's have come to accept Mufaddal Saifuddin as their Da'i. Therefore, he is the da'i, atleast of those who believe he is, i.e. Dawoodi Bohras.

On the other hand, Khuzaima Qutbuddin is merely a "claimant", with minimal support. This justifies the use of the word in his case.

That kept in mind, I hope you won't revert my editing hence fourth, on this matter.

Thanks. DistributorScientiae (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your message.

I don't agree with your logic. Ther is no compraison with democratic election (Obama as you quoted) and this issue.

Mufaddal and Khuzaima are both claimant for Dai-ship. Khuzaima followers are Dawoodi Bohra too. We have no idea yet how many followers each claimant have. Mufaddal Saifuddin is controlling the administration, and that's why propably most of media have stated that Dawoodi Bohra accepted him as Dai.

I will revert your edit. Reference are valid regarding the sucession issue and both are still claimants. I'm trying to keep a NPOV on this matter. Hope you understand Ftutocdg (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to give a democratic analogy, rather, I'm speaking of social acceptability and norms. Having said that, in an encyclopedia such as this, it is not appropriate for an editor to speculate about the concerned facts himself/herself. Misplaced Pages policy entails editors referencing secondary sources. Therefore, what the mainstream media states IS treated as fact, regardless of speculations otherwise. your starement "Mufaddal Saifuddin is controlling the administration, and that's why propably most of media have stated that Dawoodi Bohra accepted him as Dai." Is speculatory, and therefore, not allowed. NPOV is what is what the sources state, regardless of the editors feelings.

Yes, both are claimants, and may always remain to be. But please refer my previous talk again. Your repeated reverting is not appreciated. Please site a GOOD reason before making any changes. DistributorScientiae (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

All reference regarding the sucession issue have stated on neutral POV. None of them have stated that Mufaddal Saifuddin was Dawoodi Bohra's 53rd Dai. Thats's the problem. The media you talked about have stated for Mufaddal Saifuddin BEFORE this sucession issue openly arise. That's why I wrote "Mufaddal Saifuddin is controlling the administration" - it's a fact too. So keeping in mind wikipedia NPOV policy, "claimant" is necessery to qualify both "dai". I don't need to justify further. Thanks Ftutocdg (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

PS : There are many article on Dawoodi Bohras where basic NPOV are not respected. Your contribution is urged : especially on this fictional Qutbi Bohra article , Progressive Dawoodi Bohra, Taher Saifuddin, ... Ftutocdg (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Please report edit warring by Md.et , Mufaddalqn etc

They should be reported for edit warring as they are constantly removing verified information from news sources and adding biased blog sources of the disputant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 10:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Third Opinion

You recently attempted to make a 3O request by listing it at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution requests/Third Opinion, but unfortunately that's just a referral page, not a listing page. If you still desire a 3O, please make your request at Third Opinion. However, since the article is now listed for deletion, it would probably be best if you were to wait until that process is resolved before requesting a 3O or other dispute resolution, especially if your 3O request goes to the reason for the AfD request. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I'll wait AfD process before request 3O. --Ftutocdg (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Follow up

Hi Ftutocdg. Further to your message on my talk page, I posted on Araz5152's talk page and hope it will be received well. Talk page discussions should be focused. The two previous Qutbi Bohra AfD discussions have been a mess of transgression. I noticed your comment in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Qutbi Bohra (3rd nomination). Please take the advise in WP:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I would suggest that you remove the last remark in your comment. Best, Sam Sailor 10:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I see that IPs are now joining the edit war on Qutbi Bohra. Don't take the bait and start warring. I would suggest that you follow up on the article talk page, and then re-establish well-formatted citations in the article. I have asked Araz5152 to do so, since he was the one removing them. Unfortunately he has not replied to my message on his talk page. ... When I find time, I will join in editing Qutbi Bohra. I stand by what I said at the second AfD: the sources directly supporting the subject are so few, that the article should basically be reduced to a stub and the elaborate amount of WP:OR be cut away. Best, Sam Sailor 10:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Need help in restoring Differences between dawoodi bohra and Islamic sectsSummichum (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Some biased editors are removing content , entire sections from the Dawoodi Bohra page , please help me add sufficient details and expand that section, do see my last diff. Summichum (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Summichum (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

please send requests Summichum (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)