Talk:Nouman Ali Khan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Do not delete

The deletion of this page is in my opinion not a good idea. The reason is that the person Nouman Ali Khan has very important and deep messages to deliver to people. Messages not commonly found in other scholars of Islam. I shall be archiving the page on my wiki in case wikipedia editors finalize to delete this page. Also I think this deletion is the opinion of just a few people not those who have seen the videos of the person whose page is being deleted. -- khawar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khawar.nehal (talk • contribs) 08:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I just want to add that I saw one of his videos on the website of a mosque that was in the news and I wanted to know more about him in a biographical sense. The article is a little light, but it was still somewhat useful in contextualizing what he was saying and getting a feel for the mosque's positions. So, I would have been disappointed not to see a wiki page for him. Artificialintel (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination Deletion

This page is quite frankly not even relevant for Wikipedia. Mr. Khan has his own website and YOUTUBE channel if people need info on him they look for there instead of here. The 'reasons' protesting deletion are neither neutral nor objective buzzwords like "very important" "deep messages" etc.

This should not be a platform for just any Muslim preacher. Encourage the editors to consider the content in regarding such a decisions. Whether this is really suited as genuine online encyclopedia worthy material or it just better deleted and just left on bio pages on his other numerous platforms. Thank you --Anaccuratesource (talk) 04:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• - See:
• - (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion)
• - (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:An_article_about_yourself_isn%27t_necessarily_a_good_thing)
• - (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view)
• - (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion)
• - (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion)
• - (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anaccuratesource (talk • contribs) 05:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Sexual misconduct allegations

It would be wrong to omit mentioning this issue, given that it has attracted mainstream (non-tabloid) media coverage. I have tried to transform this section into a set of tight, accurate, fair, neutral and balanced statements. The allegations are briefly mentioned, but not in a gratuitous fashion, and NAK's denial of the verity of those accusations is presented. The citations are from major third-party (non-tabloid) newspapers. Please don't just delete this referenced information. Bring any concerns here to the talk page so that we can try to form some kind of editor consensus. Thanks, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@George Custer's Sabre: Well, how does removing the relevant names of players in the this allegation controversy make it more neutral? This new version of the article just removes necessary information. I suggest reverting to this version. Kamalthebest (talk) 05:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello and salam Kamalthebest, I hope you are fine. Actually, the people you call "players" are entirely incidental and the inclusion of their names is far from "necessary". Let's see what other editors think. Especially with articles describing controversies in BLPs, we should take a cautious approach, always remaining mindful of potential damage to reputations. I'll quote verbatim from the BLP guidelines: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

We have a responsibility to ensure that this one issue does not dominate the page on NAK. In fairness, we should keep the section in proportion to all notable things he is known for. We should also ensure that equal space in the section is devoted to both the accusation(s) and the response. Let's keep the section tight, fair, neutral and reliably referenced. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 02:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

This is difficult for me to comment on since I voted to delete the article on this person back when it was deleted. It appears that the community has deemed the case to have changed, so I won't oppose the article's existence.

That being said...most of the controversy has taken place in the form of social media drama. Khan's opponents are mostly individuals significantly even less notable than he is. It's safe to say that this is a local scandal which has some, but minimal, mainstream media coverage. Per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, I'd advise waiting to see if there is further coverage in mainstream media like Dawn or the Express Tribune. That's the determining factor for what is and isn't worthy of conclusion.

Also...StepFeed? Seriously? That's a series of blogs created by unprofessional non-journalists, it's no more reliable than BoredPanda or DailyFail. Why is that cited here? And why did somebody try to cite MuslimMatters? We shouldn't let any issue cause us to lower our standards. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear MezzoMezzo, I'm with you on the issue of NAK's notability. I was also surprised to see the page reappear, but like you I won't seek to remove it again. Today I've been going through the sources to see if they actually support the claims. In several cases they don't. I am bothered that much of the biographical material comes from one website (http://www.convergencestride.com). It does not qualify as a RS. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Can we add the information regarding the lawsuit filed in Dallas County, Texas, Bayyinah v. Omar Suleiman? 164.160.93.47 (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, so long as the matter is notable and your statements are referenced with reliable and third-party sources. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear everyone: I haven't made changes to the page yet, but I feel the need to point out that the Buzzfeed article is, for the most part, unfounded. No actual sources were named, and the main person quoted is essentially a jilted ex-girlfriend. Buzzfeed is a tabloid known primarily for perfecting clickbait. By referencing the Buzzfeed article here we give it a journalistic patina it doesn't merit. Can we instead reference a publication with verified sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:203:6970:B075:CAEE:53C7:85DA (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello friends. I did not add the BuzzFeed reference. Another editor did. But the article reads like any other investigative piece. It’s not unusual for a key source to remain anonymous. I’m not committed to the article remaining. What do other editors think? Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:20, 22 BuzzFeedNews is not a tabloid. It has editorial oversight and professional fulltime named journalists. Even the Wikipedia article on BuzzFeed states: “In late 2011, Ben Smith of Politico was hired as editor-in-chief to expand the site into serious journalism, long-form journalism, and reportage.” December 2017 (UTC)

Hello folks and thank you GorgeCustersSabre. A little digging reveals the original letter from NAKs attorney to the Buzzfeed author who, if its real, basically ignored it. The letter / email was apparently requested by a FB user from NAKs lawyer. The name fits and can probably be verified with a phone call. Here is the image of the letter: https://scontent.fads1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/fr/cp0/e15/q65/25586866_900676873428419_1373602115718320856_o.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=78728156450afb5c45a35e44a36c21ef&oe=5AB46BB3 It seems detailed enough to be legit - still needs verification though. But if even some of it is true it casts significant doubt on the Buzzfeed article that would, IMHO, make Buzzfeed a less than reliable source for Wikipedia in this case. Read it and make your own decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:203:6970:F872:511:890A:5BDD (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately we cannot easily establish the reliability of the document, which is unpublished, has no letterhead and no signature. Moreover, it’s a lawyer’s letter (apparently) merely representing a client’s position, which may or may not be factually correct. Do you know of anything published in a reliable third-party publication? Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

BuzzFeed is not a reliable source, and it should be removed from this article.

• "The more extreme tabloids such as the National Enquirer should never be used, as most stories in them are intentional hoaxes."
• "In general, tabloid newspapers, such as The Sun, Daily Mirror, the Daily Mail (see also the February 2017 RFC discussing its validity), equivalent television shows, should be used with caution, especially if they are making sensational claims. The Daily Express and Sunday Express should be treated with even greater caution." Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources

This is from Wikipedia's BuzzFeed article in the controversy section, "In October 2014, a Pew Research Center survey found that in the United States, BuzzFeed was viewed as an unreliable source by the majority of people, regardless of political affiliation"

Most importantly, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons require higher quality sources than BuzzFeed. The subject of the article even has a pending lawsuit[1] over alleged misrepresentations, so Wikipedia requires an even greater degree of caution. Waters.Justin (talk) 05:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Dear Waters.Justin, I hope you are fine. NAK's lawsuit is against Omar Suleiman, who is not mentioned in the Wikipedia article (and nor is their dispute), and it is unrelated to the controversy over NAK's alleged sexual misconduct. We should not mix these up. Regarding BuzzFeedNews, I stand by what I wrote above: BuzzFeedNews is not a tabloid. It has editorial oversight and professional fulltime named journalists. Even the Wikipedia article on BuzzFeed states: "In late 2011, Ben Smith of Politico was hired as editor-in-chief to expand the site into serious journalism, long-form journalism, and reportage." Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Although I argued that Buzzfeed is usable below, I should say that when there's a dispute about sourcing, the first step should always be to look for additional sources, of which there seems to be several. Relying on multiple sources is good anyway, since it reduces the risk of placing undue weight on any one of them. Just from a quick Google search: NPR, The Atlantic, Daily Pakistan, Dhaka Tribune, Geo.TV (the last one includes his response) --Aquillion (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

My recent edits

In good faith I have made several edits to this page today in an honest attempt to make it more neutral, accurate and reliable and to remove the page's excessive reliance on NAK's own non-neutral Bayyinah.com website. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of the “controversy” section

Please desist from removing information that is well referenced with reliable third-party sources. You may personally hate to see this “controversy” section, but your personal preference actually doesn’t matter; nor does mine (or any other individual editor’s). Notable issues, covered for example by reliable third-party sources, on notable people should be included even if they show our heroes in a negative light. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Two sockpuppets have been blocked already for this, and a third has been reported. I've also requested temporary semi-protection for the article, which will be the third time this quarter. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear The Mighty Glen. Thanks for your duty of care. I think we need to stay vigilant with this page for a while. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 08:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment on buzzfeed reference

Is BuzzFeed a reliable source for Biographies of living persons? Waters.Justin (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Some background. Nouman Ali Khan is a young Texas-based muslim cleric with a large online following. Some of his associates have accused him of inappropriate relations with various women. As a result, Khan has a pending business disparagement lawsuit against one of his prior business associates. See [2] BuzzFeed wrote "a written summary of the clerics’ findings, which was obtained by BuzzFeed News and hasn’t been previously disclosed, depicts a man who used his prestige to groom female fans for “secret sham marriages,” essentially sexual relationships that have no US legal standing and only dubious religious cover."[3] Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is controlling policy, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources is a guideline, and Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources is essay advice. Waters.Justin (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Please see my views above. I note this assessment on the BuzzFeed Wikipedia page:

In late 2011, Ben Smith of Politico was hired as editor-in-chief to expand the site into serious journalism, long-form journalism, and reportage. ... BuzzFeed's news division began in December 2011 with the appointment of Ben Smith as editor-in-chief. In 2013, Pulitzer Prize winner Mark Schoofs of ProPublica was hired as head of investigative reporting. The British division of BuzzFeed News is headed by Janine Gibson, formerly of The Guardian. Notable coverage includes a 2012 partnership with the BBC on match-fixing in professional tennis, and inequities in the U.S. H-2 guest worker program, reporting of which won a National Magazine Award.

A comparison of news articles by BuzzFeed and The New York Times found that BuzzFeed largely follows established rules of journalism. Both publications predominantly used inverted pyramid news format, and journalists' opinions were absent from the majority of articles of both. Both BuzzFeed and the Times predominately covered government and politics, and predominantly used politicians, government, and law enforcement as sources. In contrast, BuzzFeed devoted more articles to social issues such as including LGBT issues and protests, more frequently quoted ordinary people, less frequently covered crime and terrorism, and had fewer articles focusing on negative aspects of an issue.

Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Based on the information above, it is a reliable source for BLPs Atlantic306 (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Buzzfeed is usable, although it would be best to find more than one source for a contentious claim - a quick Google News search turns up numerous other outlets covering this controversy. This has been discussed on WP:RSN in the past - Buzzfeed has a legitimate news division that has a reasonably good reputation among professionals who watch the industry (eg. CJR). However, it's important to make a distinction between those and its lists, opinion, or gossip columns, just like we would anywhere else. All that said, is there something we specifically need to cite to Buzzfeed? Like I said, I'm seeing numerous other sources available. For example, NPR mentions the secret sham marriage thing, too. Is there a reason we can't use that? Is there something in the Buzzfeed article that isn't in that one which we need to cover? I'm all for arguing that Buzzfeed is usable nowadays - they broke a lot of important stories - but there's no point in dragging our heels on it and turning it into a big dispute if we have another source, which nobody objects to, saying the same thing. --Aquillion (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Dear friends, in rersponse to Aquillion's very helpful comments, I have added the NPR source to the article alongside the existing BuzzFeedNews article. It now seems pretty tight in terms of RS. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I removed the Request for comment. After reading the archives in the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, I see that more editors support citing BuzzFeed than oppose citing them. Waters.Justin (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Accusations

"It's therefore reasonable to say which papers (and where) covered the story" says User talk:GorgeCustersSabre here--well, no, it is not; what you are doing is suggesting that since something is mentioned in these sources it is extra important, and that's the kind of thing you can't do in a BLP. Moreover, you also restored an excessive quote that's more than a little clickbaity, "the English-speaking Muslim internet sphere has virtually exploded over allegations that a prominent American preacher, Nouman Ali Khan, has acted inappropriately with women"--and the problem there is that this is sourced to an editorial. Furthermore, the section completely overwhelms the rest of the article, and that's UNDUE. In other words, yeah, there's more than one BLP problem here, and now that I have listed them I am convinced that your edit should be reverted per BLP, and there's a lot more in that section that needs to be edited/condensed. And I see a panel mentioned which was never explained or introduced--there's some poor writing in here. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Dear Drmies, I hope you are fine. This story was not covered universally. For example, the mainstream US media largely ignored the story. It was more prominently covered in Muslim countries, particularly in the country of NAK's ancestry. Let's now see what others say. I won't argue against any emerging editor consensus. But I disagree with you about the quality of your last edit. That's my right. It's not personal. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • User talk:GorgeCustersSabre you are obviously not familiar with WP:3RRBLP, which makes me wonder how well-acquainted you are with the BLP in the first place, and I see that you have chosen not to address it at all. Feel free to take this to BLPN if you like, or ask for admin intervention, but this is 3RR exempt. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I placed a note on BLPN; editors there are more familiar with the BLP than you are, and I have invited them to take a look at this discussion. Perhaps one of them will take the opportunity to revert you. I'm puzzled, GorgeCustersSabre; you have been here so long and to start an edit war without even addressing the reason is quite unexpected. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • BTW this is both rude and not how a talk page should be archived; I find it telling. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the section was over-long, overshadowing the actual biography, and its construction was unencyclopedic since it foregrounded what newspapers said what. I reverted and attempted some further shortening. The Atlantic and Buzzfeed coverage does demonstrate geographic breadth, especially the latter given its good reputation. And the Atlantic quote is strong stuff, so I did not remove or truncate it, but placed it in the footnote rather than in the paragraph text, summarizing in the text. I also identified the article as opinion after examining it, and I tweaked the start of teh paragraph to specify on-line activities. We discourage sections in BLPs headed simply "Controversy"; I think this article illustrates why, since the heading gives the impression that the person's overall career has attracted controversy or involves controversial opinions. In this instance the accusations concern a specific area of his life, so I used the term "sexual harassment" (rather than some journalist's "sham marriages"), but I'm not sure that's the best formulation. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Nouman Ali Khan.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2020

Change “on-line” to “online” 71.244.200.103 (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Seagull123 Φ 15:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

This biography is a disgrace and requires much more content.

Nouman Ali Khan is quite an important figure in the Western-Muslim world as his khutbas and videos have received over 100 million views on the web. However, when his name is typed into the internet, this is the first article to come up. It is simply a 3 sentence summary, and then essentially the whole article is about the controversy that broke out from confirmed rumors against him. The controversy section needs further discussion and I have created a separate section as such. Regardless of whether the controversy section is changed, like GeorgeCustersSabers said, it overwhelms the rest of the article and Khan's achievements. His life's work is not just being born, making some YouTube videos and then sexual allegations.

I would like to add multiple sections to the article citing all of his achievements such as when he went with Biden to Turkey and his travels around the world as a political figure. The man has spoken with Obama and it's not written on here. I want to add information as to why he was ranked one the 500 most influential Muslims. As a newer Wikipedia editor, I ask for good faith, recommendations, and advice on how to proceed. Should I just start making additions with properly cited sources? Thanks. Yousephf (talk) 11:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear Yousephf, my advice would be to propose your edits here on this talk page so that other editors can see what you want to add and how you intend to verify it. Don’t add anything, of course, without reliable and published third-party sources. Good luck. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, George Custer's Sabre, I appreciate your response, last question though, is there a method to propose edits on the talk page first? Or is it simply paraphrasing what I would like to add, what sources I would like to use and such on here before I make the edit? Thanks, Yousephf (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

::Dear Yousephf, you can just add here (either below my post or as a new section) the sentences and sources you would like to add to the NAK page. Other editors will be prompt in helping or advising you. Hope this helps. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 12:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The Accusations of harassment section is unjust and hard to understand in its current state and connotation.

Hi, I understand the controversy section has been the core issue of this article for the longest time now, and I think it is justifiably so. When I first searched up Nouman Ali Khan to watch one of his lectures a bit ago, I clicked on this Wikipedia page and was completely shocked at the allegations and was confused about the meaning of specific statements as they are quite vague and of bad connotation. For example:

• "An article in The Atlantic noted some backlash against women who had accused Khan of misconduct."

What does this mean? I had to read the article to understand it was in reference to the women who spoke out against him.

• "These accusations were repeated in international newspapers;[8][9][10] Khan responded that the leaked text conversations were "between consenting adults" and that the women were marriage prospects, noting that he had been divorced for two years."

And then this statement, it doesn't seem bad and even is in his favor! However, only now after reading meticulously into the matter is it so, when I first read it I thought it had quite a different connotation as it is thrown in between allegations against him. This section needs to be restructured with allegations and defense.

• "In December 2017, BuzzFeed News published an article on what it called Khan's "spiritual abuse" activities, claiming that he unsuccessfully begged four fellow clerics to not release a joint statement referring to "secret sham marriages"."

This one is especially frustrating, I just reread the BuzzFeed article and not once does the whole article use any word similar to begging! This does not reflect the truth, the article itself says "Khan had his attorney send letters to the mediators threatening lawsuits.". This one is objectively wrong and needs to be modified to reflect the article.

In regards to the second paragraph about the committee, I recommend that it be shortened to remove less relevant details to be more concise, as it is essentially just an extended introduction for the verdict that they came to. From:

• On October 2017, a committee composed of various Islamic scholars and community leaders, including those who have held leadership positions in the Islamic Society of North America, counselors and mental health professionals, released a statement after conducting their own investigation into the matter. Among the panel were Aisha Al-Adawiya, Salma Abugideiri, Tamara Gray, Altaf Husain, Mohamed Magid and Ingrid Mattson.

To:

• On October 2017, a committee composed of various Islamic scholars and community leaders released a statement after conducting their own investigation into the matter.

I am aware that wiki articles don't hide the truth, even if it is unfortunate, but such a section must be written with especial care to reflect the truth on a biography of a living person, so I hope you will take the time to review my proposed changes, and allow me to restructure the section as it can be quite frustrating and confusing, as evident in that it has received a lot of vandalism in the past. Best wishes, salam alaykoum. --Yousephf (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The problem so far, dear Yousephf, is that you are merely suggesting alternative readings or interpretations of the evidence that exists. So far I can’t see in your explanation any grounds for substantial change. Merely saying that you disagree with other editors’ wording isn’t likely to succeed, and nor is a desire to cut out names and other important details. If you removed the names of people, such as the scholars who formed a committee, I’m pretty sure other editors will add them again. Factual errors, on the other hand, could be corrected. What are the factual errors? Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

George Custer's Sabre, in that sense the closest thing I have stated to a factual error was the stretch interpretation that he begged the mediators, as opposed to the article stating that his attorneys threatened a lawsuit. Everything else was request to restructure, with regards to the first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yousephf (talk • contribs) 14:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear friend Yousephf, I changed the one comment that you strongly objected to, agreeing that the source required such a change. I don’t think you’ll make much progress with your other observations, however, given that they seem to be your view that some things are overstated or understated, as opposed to being wrong. But let’s see what other editors think. All the best, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Nouman Ali Khan Bayyinah.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Nouman Ali Khan Bayyinah.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2022

I want to type about Nouman Ali Khans career. 2604:3D08:367D:5D00:68FD:8D91:3160:7ADE (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2022

I want to add something to an article 2604:3D08:367D:5D00:5576:D8E7:FDBD:2CE5 (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2022 (2)

I want to add something to the career section of the nouman ali khan wikipedia page Lake Hill (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2022 (3)

I want to help by addiing expansion to the careear section. Lake Hill (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)