This is an archive of past discussions with User:Emadix. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, EmadIV! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Sp33dyphil"Adastra"11:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I have reverted your edits to Singapore Airlines regarding the A380 engine failure. On Wikipedia we only include notable incidents, this is not classed as notable. Have a look here: Wikipedia:AIRCRASH this will guide you in what accidents / incidents you should include in articles. Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Bahrain A320.jpg
File Copyright problem
Thanks for uploading File:Bahrain A320.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.
If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.
Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
A tag has been placed on File:Bahrain A320.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ww2censor (talk) 05:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I found it on the Aviation Herald. As far as I know, the Aviation Herald does not copyright their pictures and allow them to be released to the public freely. IF I'm wrong, just post back and I'll immediately remove it.
I have just added the link. I appreciate your help! I do not like to get into problems. If there are problems with the link, just post back. EmadIV (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
A bit of a check shows that the picture was actually taken from a YouTube video. It seems like it may be copyrighted. I will certainly ask the video author; and if proven, I will remove the picture. Apologies for the trouble caused.
I have sent the author a message asking for to license the work. Please do not remove the photo until I receive a reply (probably in a few hours).
I encourage you to sign your post on your talk pages, as otherwise we have no timestamp. I hope you'll get positive replies or be able to obtain freely licensed photos another way. We very much appreciate your involvement, but unfortunately, laws are laws, and Wikipedias is one of the few places that actually pays them any respect. As a non-profit NGO witha tiny budget, the only one in the Top 10 most popular sites, we cannot risk a lawsuit, or other troubles, and try to be a good citizen. At the same time, we (I) fully support free culture and hope that those ufriendly, unwieldy laws will change. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me16:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello EmadIV. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jigsaw camouflage, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not blatantly vandalism or a hoax. Thank you. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk03:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Your recent edits
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 could also click on the signature button or 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) 18:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
speedies
Please be more careful:
After Malik left you the note above about Jigsaw Camouflage, you just put back the same incorrect speedy tag again -- I removed it.
A7 only applies to the things specifically listed on that template: people, groups, organizations, etc. not Nanjing yunjin brocade , a type of cloth.
for Oksana Grishina you seem to have twice misread the article, as indicated by the comments on the talk p.
In addition, you've been not understanding the difference between A7 and G11--A7 is where there is no indication of plausible importance. An article that is highly promotional but about someone or something that might well be important should be tagged only G11. An article that is straight description about a person or group for which there is no likely claim of importance should be tagged only A7. An article that is straight description about some thing which is not a person or group etc. but for which there is no indication of importance must go to WP:PROD. And in many cases, you will find WP:BLPPROD very useful.
Please read, slowly and carefully, WP:Deletion policy and WP:CSD before doing any more patrolling. I reread them myself every once in a while to make sure I'm not drifting. We need patrollers, but we need it done right. Yo've made many good catches, but what you do needs to conform to the guidelines. CSD in particularly is interpreted narrowly, and can not be used in a wide discretionary fashion. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
November 2011
Hello EmadIV. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know however, regarding jabiru airport, that tagging articles for speedy deletion moments after creation as lacking context (CSD A1), content (CSD A3) and articles created through the Article Wizard, is too fast. It's best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), pure vandalism (G3), and copyright violations (G12) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. →Στc.18:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your help with the vital work of patrolling new pages. I noticed that you are not marking some of the pages you've reviewed as patrolled. Please do remember to click the 'mark this page as patrolled' link at the bottom of the new page if you have performed the standard patrolling tasks. Where appropriate, doing so saves time and work by informing fellow patrollers of your review of the page, so that they do not duplicate efforts. Thanks again for volunteering your time at the new pages patrol project. →Στc.18:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello EmadIV. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Verne Fiedler, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk20:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for quickly backtracking and not dragging me through AfD on a brand new article, I wish more people responded that way and didn't go for delete prematurely. Thanks!Westernstag (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
My reaction to seeing the article was, "Speedy Delete". But a closer look showed that the article can grow and might be useful. I don't put these speedy tags for no reason! —>εϻαdινΤαΙkϾδητrιβμτιoης20:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I am sure you don't also maybe you missed my edit summary where I mentioned that I was going to be working on this article from scratch and to please not delete. You could save yourself work by contacting the editor or waiting a little more than a minute after its creation.Westernstag (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I actually tagged it for deletion under A7, meaning that it was about an animal but did not indicate credible importance. A closer look at it proved otherwise. —>εϻαdινΤαΙkϾδητrιβμτιoης20:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for signing up for this project. It is a very busy and active project with lots going on and we can always use more help and especially a fresh set of eyes. If you haven't done so already you might want to add Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft to your watch list as this is where much of the background discussion occurs. You may also want to watch Wikipedia:New articles (Aircraft) as this is where newly created articles get listed for peer review. Having a look over these new articles is a great way to get a feel for how things are done on the project and also most new articles need reviewing anyway. If you have any questions you can leave me a note or post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft, either way you will get a quick response. - Ahunt (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
That situation dealt with, I ask that you take a look at what happened to the stub Abento left us,[1] and see that User:Bluemask has expanded and adequately souced it to create a suitable start class. I believe notability has been established.
Hello EmadIV, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Axel Toupane, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Plays for a French top-league side, that's a big enough claim of significance thanks. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. — Joseph Fox16:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete Page
Hi, you recently requested the page Smoking in the UK be deleted - you may wish to revisit the page now while it is undergoing maintenence Robjp21019 (talk) 23:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to bug you but either your rollback userbox has some bug or you don't have rollback rights in Wikipedia.When I clicked "verify" of "This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify)" ,it took me to a page which was this.If you did have rollback rights then your verify result would be like this.If this is some bug then contact your administrator who has given you rollback rights.Else as I believe that you don't have rollback rights and I would suggest that you remove this userbox.Vivekananda De--tAlK11:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
According to your user rights thing, you don't have rollback. Are you using the rollback feature in Twinkle? That works pretty much the same, but it isn't the same as being a rollbacker, and doesn't entitle anyone to use the rollback userbox. I can't see any recent Twinkling, though. When you look at a history page, after the title and edit summary bit, do you get rollback in brackets in ordinary type, in bold type in a funny colour, or not at all? (Only there if it's the latest edit on a page.) Peridon (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
It is confusing. If you do a lot with vandalism, you could apply at WP:RFPERM. If you're only fighting now and then, stick to Twinkle. (I got it, and hardly ever used it. I used to do everything manually then. Caused a bit of a stir at my RfA - someone with no automated edits at all. Peridon (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
This issue has been resolved.I congratulate you on your splendid work.Can you explain this.
You answered to this post at "11:55, 17 November 2011" by saying that you did have rollback (I guess you were mistaken about twinkle and rollback right).See this
And strangely nobody told you about this difference because Peridon answered at "16:37, 17 November 2011" ,a good one-half hours later.Thus you already knew about the difference between "Twinkle" rollback and "Rollback Rights".See I know that I have no right to speak about what a user can place in his userbox and I am sorry about it.Vivekananda De--tAlK05:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
It's OK. I wouldn't like to lie about something I am not. My work is heavily focused on patrolling new pages (take a look at my contributions, more than 500 of my edits are to do with speedy deletions). There are many users who fight vandalism and bots too (Cluebot NG), but no bots and less users in patrolling. Thanks. —>εϻαdινΤαΙkϾδητrιβμτιoης06:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello EmadIV. I am just letting you know that I deleted VonMarkie Brown, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Your rollback request
Hello EmadIV, I have granted rollback rights to your account in accordance with your request. Please be aware that rollback should be used to revert vandalism/spam/blatantly unconstructive edits, and that using it to revert anything else (such as by revert-warring or reverting edits you disagree with) can lead to it being removed from your account...sometimes without any warning, depending on the admin who becomes aware of any misuse. If you think an edit should require a reason for reverting, then don't use rollback and instead, use a manual edit summary. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari14:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
If it isn't obvious, if the article should be nominated for AFD it should be nominated without removing the reliable sources first. Because people have to vote for or against this article it is important to actually have the article and not the 1 line of content. Not that the article is finished, I didn't really get a chance to finish it because of the afd. The user who nominated it obviously couldn't see I was working on it.
You understand?
So the article should be made visible so that people can vote on the AFD. That is the only issue at hand.
Consider withdrawing, it would never be deleted anyway. Notable articles will always be notable. You are confusing lack of content with lack of notability. ♦ Dr. Blofeld14:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Well xxx is a village yes its short but a google book search would have shown its notable. Note that virtually all verifiable goeographical places are considered notable on here see WP:Notability (geography), even if very short..♦ Dr. Blofeld14:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
It was not actually verifiable. I do not live there and I therefore cannot tell whether it actually exists. But it's expanded enough; I'll withdraw the nomination. →εϻαdινΤαΙkϾδητrιβμτιoης14:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean it was not actually verifiable????? Do you think I live there too? Google books, check it out sometime, it might even help you with your aircraft articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld14:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Why did you revert [this edit] ny me, adding an original research template to an unsourced sententce which said: "However, this spread of nearly identical pathological science in history shows that the phenomenon has greater breadth than the usual patriotic self-deception that is assumed." As I explained in my edit summary, this sentence seems like original research to me, because it expresses the opinion that is neithe attributed or sourced. You say in your mesage on my talk page that my edit was unconstructive, what was unconstuctive about it. Perhaps you might ask yourself whether you would make that revert if I was a logged-in user. If the OR tag offends you, would you object to the use of a citation needed tag as a comprimise? Thanks, 137.43.188.87 (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
My apologies, I did not realize that it meant original research. Hope you understand and sorry for (if) discouraging you. Thanks.
Thanks for your addition to this article. I just want to explain why I removed the information you added. Although it is, as you said, included in the references, Wikipedia policy states that we can not simply copy and paste from other sources, but have to rephrase the text. The information in that format is also quite complicated to follow for anyone (such as myself) who doesn't really understand what it is talking about. If you can find a way to rewrite this information in a way that is easier to follow, and insert that into the page, it would be greatly appreciated. Otherwise this information is unfortunately not going to be able to be placed in the article. Regards, Harriastalk12:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Please can you clarify your unsubstantiated accusation? In complete innocence I added a new name to Status Quo. In my locality, Status Quo are commonly referred to as 'The Repetitive Two Chord Wielding Middle Aged Men'. Are you even from the UK so as to be qualified to contribute to this issue of vital importance?
“In my locality, Status Quo are commonly referred to as 'The Repetitive Two Chord Wielding Middle Aged Men'” We need references to support that claim, and besides, Wikipedia deals with international matter, not local matter. You are welcome to add the content but you need to include verifiable sources (not including blogs, YouTube, Facebook, etc). →εϻαdινΤαΙkϾδητrιβμτιoης15:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
List of American Civil War Generals (Confederate)
I am working on the article, including a plan for reorganizing it (already started) and eventually shortening it considerably. I have explained this in some more detail on the talk page and made a brief note at the end of the introduction so I won't repeat that here. Because of these explanations which serve a similar purpose but also show some plan to deal with it, I have removed the "too long" tag. I ask that you read the explanation on the talk page for my complete thoughts. If you really disagree that the explanation is good enough to show that there is recognition about the length of the article and work is being done on it, and you want to put the tag back on the article, go ahead. I will not remove it again until I have actually reduced the size of the article. However, I don't think the tag is necessary since I am going to work on the article in line with my explanation whether it is tagged or not. I worry that the tag might invite someone else to precipitously remove material that I want to abbreviate or remove in a disciplined way, or might even scare off some readers who think the article is defective. As a list, however, it is not really meant to be read from end to end at one time - by most readers, at least. Maybe there is too little interest for these worries to be serious but that is part of my thinking, which I did not think appropriate to state on the talk page because it might attract the adverse action that I mention if it were so publicly advertised. Donner60 (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. Your explanation is reasonable, I won't add that tag again. It will certainly be bad if a user deliberately deleted content because of that tag. →εϻαdινΤαΙkϾδητrιβμτιoης16:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Camilla Lackberg: Ice Princess., requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.
If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Achowat (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi EmadIV, thanks for your comment about me here. :) I recently closed the review page and now want to thank the participants: your words about me were very kind. Best. Acalamari09:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Sir, I Created this Page & am the only Wiki user maintaining it. I cite all my sources, & need not explain anything to myself about my edits on the team I passionately love & care for. If you care to know today Corinthians re-numbered the squad due to departures & arrivals of the last transfer window. Please do not disrupt my edits anymore. 1dayFloripa (talk) 03:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
why did you delete the match reports I created for the last 2 rounds without justification? They were cited, what's your problem. 1dayFloripa (talk) 03:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Emad, there was no need to use rollback here, so be careful next time, and as the other editor has challenged your reversion, try to discuss the issue. Besides User:1dayFloripa you need to be civil while conversating with other editors, calling someone "idiot" won't help you. Happy Editing! --SMSTalk09:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello EmadIV. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Knyvett v Christchurch Casinos Ltd, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs)13:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
This is my first experience working with Wikipedia (as you can probably tell) and I was tasked with creating pages on the past Attorneys General for our Historical Committee project (I work for the current AG) and was taking information that we have on our AG website. I had asked someone in our office if I needed to cite everything they cited on our website or if I could just site our website and they were unsure.
January 2015
I deleted all the information except for Wickliffe Stratton which I re-wrote. As I progress through this I will be adding information that we discover through our research. As long as I put it into my own words and cite where I found the information am I good in that respect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Washington State Attorneys General (talk • contribs) 18:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely! That is exactly what wikipedia is about. Don't worry about bots tagging your page; if you have reworded the text and bots have tagged your page as a copyvio, myself or another user will simply remove the tag and state so on the talk page. →εϻαdινΤαΙkϾδητrιβμτιoης18:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
How will I know when my page is available to view by the public? I have done a search in Google and it is not coming up. I am trying to read all the tutorials on creating pages but do not see anything.
In my research I found a page titled List of Attorneys General of Washington and it references our AG website (which is what I tried to do) but it has not got dinged for copyright. Is it because I cited it wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Washington State Attorneys General (talk • contribs) 20:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The issue is with copying the text directly into the article. However, adding it as a reference is actually recommended as it verifies the information. You can add a link to the AG website at the end of the article, under a 'References' subheading, and include small in-text references that look like [1]. You can do that by pasting the AG link with reference (<ref></ref>) tags, like <ref>www.websitehere.com</ref> , in front of your text. I'll add the reference for you in your article as an example. →εϻαdινΤαΙkϾδητrιβμτιoης21:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
One last message (sorry but you seem to be very knowledgeable!)
I just got tagged again by someone else for my page being a duplicate page? Well yes there is another page out there that list all of the Washington State AG's but our page is actually from the AG's office and will be a complete historical biography of each AG. The other page just pulled information directly from our website (not by us).
About that, it is a valid tag unfortunately. In this case, why not add the information from your article to the existing one? There is no point of having multiple pages on each topic, so duplicate topics are tagged for speedy deletion. Try searching wikipedia for the topic before creating a new one. The page the tagger referred to was this one. →εϻαdινΤαΙkϾδητrιβμτιoης21:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, EmadIV. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.
Hello, Emadix. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I don't mind the block notices you left on my behalf, but for future reference, especially when we are dealing with obvious trolls or long term abusers, see WP:RBI. Widr (talk) 12:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Deletion of edit Vanessa Jarvis on Girlfriend Experience
Hello Emadix,
I am new to Wikipedia. I am curious why you reverted the reference to Vanessa Jarvis, one of the pioneers, if not the founder of the Girlfriend Experience?
Did I make a procedural mistake? If you were missing the sources, these are
I was not finished with the edit...
Hello, Emadix, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!
We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help.
Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I am the closest one to Sheikh Hamdan...so u ask anyone in dubai royal family they will say that he is divorced with shaikha...He does not want her name in his wikipedia...u can ask anyone in dubai royal family n government...everyone will say he is divorced..n I am the closest one.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suparna paul (talk • contribs) 16:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Siddha Yoga
There is nothing "unneutral" about my edits. It's just counteracting the existing unneutral edits going on in this article. Siddha Yoga has a serious amount of controversy around it which is being intentionally excluded from this article and anything that can be included there are attempts to diminish what is actually controversial by hiding it behind languages like "against societal norms." Let's discuss on the article talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.214.54.67 (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
