User talk:Muslim007

Welcome

Hello, Muslim007, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Claritas § 11:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Claritas § 07:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, You mean if i edit something in the article i have to put its reference link to a proper site right ?

You need to cite reliable sources using the <ref> </ref> markup. Please read WP:RS for information concerning what is accepted as reliable sources. Claritas § 08:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The larger problem is that Wikipedia material has to be objective, also called NPOV (neutral point of view). Your edits to Ahmad Raza Khan are very subjective, when what is needed is indisputable facts. For practice, try imagining it through the eyes of someone who doesn't like ARK, and then imagine inarguable facts that even an ARK enemy would agree are accurate: "ARK was born on X date", "ARK published Y book which has sold XYZ copies", "ARK founded Y organisation in 1935". Opinions, no matter how fervently held, aren't what Wikipedia does, so "greatest scholar of all time", "a master of intellectual discourse", etc. are not appropriate material for Wikipedia. Please don't look on this as opposition to your positive interest in ARK, look on it instead as insuring the inarguability of the material, and that neutral parties wanting to learn more about ARK will learn more reading a neutral article (which they feel is objective and unbiased) rather than one which comes across as hagiography or propaganda. MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. (blocked by –MuZemike 02:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.