Look, I don't think we are at odds here. If you go over the article now, it seems to me that we could both agree it is far closer to Standards that it has been for a long time. I accept your due weight edits were good ones and all the improvements have come from me and you recently. If we can stop these unproductive arguments, we might be able to work together to clean this article up and effectively prevent vandalism. This is the only way to motivate others to get on board and build involvement again. If people see it's getting there, they'll help out. It is a shame that such an important subject is covered by little more than a scruffy stub. Please let us try and see eye to eye, we both want what's best for the site. Regards, Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 02:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported him to the admins. You are mentioned so i have to tell you. If you want, go and add to my query. here it is Alek2407 (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was moved to here. I have copied all of it.

Alek2407 (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I reverted your edit to Niger because what you put wasn't backed up by the cited source. I see that you've been editing some other country articles. Please be careful that when you add to a sentence that has a cited source, your edit doesn't contradict what the source says. If you can find a reliable source to back up your addition, then it's fine to add that, perhaps with an explanation that a different source gives different information. One of our key policies here is verifiability, so important to use reliable sources, and to make sure that the information we give is the same as what's in the sources we use. Thankyou, --BelovedFreak 14:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a few of your edits and unfortunately they seem less than constructive and border on being test edits, if not examples of joy rides. Please edit with care and in a constructive manner. Else your time will be wasted as your edits get reverted. At any point, please ask yourself: Does this edit really improve the article, or am I doing this to feel good? Then always select the route that improves the article. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Some_hangin_holy_figure.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. feydey (talk) 10:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Jesus_on_the_block_watching.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. feydey (talk) 10:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think you can fix any of the problems I listed at FAR, go ahead. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talk page. Your editing practice is anti-social. You should discuss the issue first in one place and make edits only after some consensus is reached. Changing multiple articles without discussion just makes other editors spend excessive time cleaning up after you. Zero^talk 03:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are failing to assume good faith and are gaming the syste by failing to enforce a Neutral point of view. Either way, i will try to gain a consensus.Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 10:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I see you have made good work reverting at List of religious populations. I would like to inform you that it is possible to revert multiple edits, in case you did not realise, at once. You can select multiple edits using Compare Selected Versions function and then go Undo from there. I did not realise this when first came here either, as can be seen by the 'Hugo Chavez' section of my talk page. Munci (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you are at the 'View History' part of a page, you can see many dots; two columns sort of; going down the page. These are situated to the right of the 'prev's and to the left of the hours of the dates. Initially, the second last and first last are always the ones selected. Like this, you can click on Compare Selected Versions and you will see the difference between the two versions selected. From there, you will see on the right hand side of the page Current revision as of [date] (edit) (undo). If you click 'undo', this will undo the changes between the selected revisions. Now, you can select any two edits as long as they are 500 or less edits apart just by moving the two dots. For example, if you move the dot on the lefthand column down one dot and then click on Compare Selected Versions, you will be able see the changes made within two edits rather than just the one. If you click Compare Selected Versions now, you will be able to click 'undo' and undo both the two most recent edits rather than just the one.

If that still doesn't help, try reading User talk:Munci#Hugo Chávez. That's how I came to understand it. There are occasionally times when this won't work though. These times are caused by two things combined:

• selecting revisions, the newest of which is not the newest version of the article
• and there having been changes made [since the selected revisions] [to the particular parts of the article you are trying to revert]. (the syntax of that last sentence might be a bit difficult without the squares used to clarify which words are part of which clause) Instead of using any 'undo' with that, you would have to undo the changes manually by selecting text, copypaste, typing out again etc. Munci (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that's a whole lot of comments on your editing below.. Anyway, one thing that is fine is to use your userpage, or even better a subpage of your userpage e.g. if you would create User:Iwanttoeditthissh/Sandbox. Munci (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Well the whole concept of Wikipedia:WikiProjects is working together and I know there is in fact WP:adoption as well. I'm not sure exactly about what you're talking about. I probably should after three years heh. Munci (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure to be honest. It was just to inform in case you didn't know it existed already. What other wikis have you been on out of curiosity? Munci (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Transition? As in transferring from one wiki to another? The only other wiki I edited really is Uncyclopedia and I stopped that now. They went and deleted 2 of my articles, one of them without much in the way of warning so I couldn't be bothered any more. And that was a while after I'd joined wikipedia. Or do you mean how I got on starting wikipedia? Well I would definitely say my behaviour has changed since I started. Nowadays, I make sure to cite everything to RSs, like going to google scholar to find stuff if you want to add something. And I've realised since like swearing and insults are bad full stop, even if it is to ip vandals or so on. Munci (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Nah you definitely don't need rollback rights. I don't have rollback or any other exceptional rights either and I can do it fine. Perhaps it's just I didn't make myself clear enough. You only end up with one box but with all the changes about to be undone. You click 'Save' and it undoes the multiple edits. Munci (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 Islam. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Alan (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are a little confused there. i added a reference without any editsIwanttoeditthissh (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is regarding your edits in Religion in India. Bahais only form 0.2% or so of the Indian population. Pls be adviced that giving it undue weightage in the lead (you described about their presence in Delhi, the Lotus temple, long history) is a violation of Wikipedia policies concerning neutrality. (Pls see WP:UNDUE). If you still feel otherwise, pls feel free to discusss in the talk page. Thanks and warm Regards. Arjun^codename024 10:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your warm regards

Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Iwanttoeditthissh. You have new messages at Arjun024's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Since, you haven't responded in this time. I am making the edit i have proposed in my talk page. I hope you will make reverts only after we talk again. Cheers.Arjun^codename024 06:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i have not responded to you. You should have left a note on my talk page. I agree with your version though. Thanks for your input.Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 07:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:D (Didn't u see the HUGE Talkback box, though i forgot to sign it !!)Arjun^codename024 07:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Iwanttoeditthissh. You have new messages at Talk:Oceania.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TFOWR^propaganda 11:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Al-Aqsa Mosque has been reverted, as it appears to introduce incorrect information. Please do not intentionally add incorrect information to articles. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for testing. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Shadowjams (talk) 08:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.noblesanctuary.com/AQSAMosque.html read the info in here. Al Aqsa was completed in 705. Since i have provided a reference I will now undo your reverts until further notice.Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or do you have a reference to the contrary?Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 08:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your comment from the talk page of that article, since the talk page is not a blog for general discussion, particularly when the article is about a living person. Edison (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC) i understand Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, over at Talk:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. You may find the answer to your question in the article itself. Regardless, you should read this policy. TFOWR^propaganda 17:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

really? all right then Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iwanttoeditthissh - Are you still interested on working to retain FA status for the Islam article? If so, substantial work is going to need to be done in the near future. There are many concerns on the review page, which is located at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Islam/archive2. These concerns should be focused on first, and then reviewers will probably list further issues that need to be resolved to polish the article back up to featured status. If you have any interest in working on this review, please leave a note on the review page. Dana boomer (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for inviting me. I feel honoured.Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I see that you have done some work on the article. However, for the article to keep its FA status, it will need a large amount of concentrated effort to address all of the issues listed on the review page. Do you have interest and the sources to do this? It's not a big deal if you don't, as the article can always be brought back to FA status later through another FAC nomination. If you do, however, the article needs to start moving along. Dana boomer (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is such a thing as excessive sources but 10 is more like it: Wikipedia:Citation overkill and that's to do with formatting and look more than the actual number of sources. The one thing I would think maybe wrong with the table is that it's so many disparate sources; the figures are not comparable to one another because they would have been done with different methodology. Munci (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Got it watched again sure. Munci (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Eh but I don't think citation overkill applies here. The 8 billion argument is reasonable though. Munci (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Actually, I kind of think this should be discussed on the article talk page anyway; that would give an opportunity for everyone to have their say. Munci (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know man; I'm sure I've not touched that article before. You could maybe try putting it in the main article "Religious significance of Jerusalem". If that still gets removed, try discussing it on the talk page. Warfare's not really the answer. Munci (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A very poor analogy.

Christianity and Islam are clearly related. Buddhism and Judaism are not. HiLo48 (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um I don't know man that doesn't seem wikipedia's style. I mean you get lists of inventions like Inventions in medieval Islam, which could do with some work, and List of Indian inventions but nothing about top X of anything except for things which are obviously quantifiable like top ten coutnries to win Xs. Would you rather make some improvements to Inventions in medieval Islam or something like that? Munci (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC) See the odd one out I see out of those (the one that doesn't involve one number being bigger than the other) is The Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time. This was a list constructed by an external source. Theoretically, should you find something similar written by a hypothetical highly respected organisation The Invention Society or the Inventor's Association, then you could basically just quote their list. Without finding a single such source, I doubt that such an article would stand well. It might have similar problems to that third section on religion statistics in fact, due to it being from disparate sources. Munci (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have done fine yourself while I was off wikipedia. Let's hope he does discuss on the page in future. Munci (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man what do you mean by userboxes? You referring to these little things:WP:userboxes? Here you can find a list of all the lists of them. Unless it was something else you were meaning? Munci (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(wink)Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - Thanks for your efforts here. Johnbod (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most accessed pages [hits per day]:[1]. Statistics for each month. And these are the ones for 2008 and 2009. It's linked to from the talk pages of any of the articles mentioned. Munci (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pls do not contort sources like you did here ([2]) to write down ludicrous stuff. Arjun^codename024 20:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I'm not sure actually if that would be fine for me to intervene because I only spoke with you at all so far out of the disputants. Otherwise, could yous no just include a range of figures? Munci (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am warning you that if you continue to sabotage any effort to remove 19er bias from relevant pages, you will be reported to Admin. Do you think it's right that the page on Quran Alone has four of the top five external links linking to 19ers sites? 19ers are a minority amongst Quranists, yet they dominate the page. The article now has one link to 19ers, one link is all anyone needs. I even left it as the top link to discourage you from vandalism, but no, you restore all your 19er links and typos and poor grammar. You did not even edit the page to maintain the improvements, you just revert, revert, revert - mindless vandalism is not tolerable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk • contribs) 22:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dude what's up? He said he was removing duplicates. This appears to be the case, given that godsmosque.org, free-minds.org, quranicpath.com, freequranonline.org and aboutquran.com are all still on the article. The only one that was actually removed was quranicislam.com. You might want to talk to the guy without templates actually; templates should generally be left for the likes of changing the article to say 'penis' or saying fireflies are sort of giant. Munci (talk) 10:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jigglyfidders for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Nothing personal, I saw your edits and honestly they seem to be pretty similar to a blocked editor's contributions. Regards, ITAQALLAH 00:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

im sorry but im not a sockpuppet. Maybe you are angry that i reverted 1 or 2 edits of yours this week?

Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, like I said, it's nothing personal. I don't get angry at reverts... I have dealt with them for many years ^_^. The way to deal with an indefinite block is to appeal it rather than make a new account to evade it. Of course, if you feel I am mistaken then there is a section for you to defend yourself. Regards, ITAQALLAH 13:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 things for sure, you spent an extraordinary amount of time searching for similarities between me and the blocked account. It must have been a 2 hour effort to gather all that info. Either you were very bored, or you just have a strident personality, or contrary to what you said, it is personal. Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should be banned on this account anyway, regardless of whether you're already banned or not. You are nothing, but disruptive. Good riddance, I say. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my personal discussion page. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I answered your question here Was Ataturk deist?.--Tuleytula (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2010 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was correctly accused of sockpuppetry but I have been constructive with this new account because i read community guideines unlike with my previous blocked account when i was an amateur. I was also unaware how to handle a block, which is why i just created a new account. I dont think i should be punished for behaviour from a past account. I hope to get an answer on whether its likely or not i will get a reply

Decline reason:

Sorry, but you are way off base when you say you don't think you should be held responsible for your previous account. You are responsible for your own actions no matter what username you are using. Any request to unblock this account will have to address the reasons your original account was blocked as well as the sockpuppetry issue or you will not be unblocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2010 (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.

• restored per WP:BLANKING. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]