Ezaid Fabber

Your recent edits at CAIR

Hi, just wondering why you undid my changes at the CAIR page when clearly the content is POV. My edits conformed to properly representing the sources cited (one of which is a recognized biased sourced), and removing POV statements, e.g. "terrorist" versus just 'group'.

We have to be fair in avoiding POV when editing political matters. Your undo serves to maintain misrepresentations.

Thanks. RRwait

I have already answered you on your talk page. Ezaid Fabber (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

	Greetings!
	Thank you for this kind regards. Have all the luck and happiness in the world! Have a great year ahead! All best, be great!

A Cat for you

you totally rock!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.47.95.145 (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ko Ko Korina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pop (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Roscelese

Hello,

I am being threatened with banning from Wikipedia by Roscelese for making factual edits to the Wikipedia entry for the Council on American Islamic Relations.

Roscelese has repeatedly made edits which state a judge removed CAIR from the list of unindicted co-conspirators. There is no truth to this, and the sources he provides do not support this assertion, and I have deleted this multiple times now.

Can you tell me how to stop this edit war?

Thanks. Livingengine1 (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The 1993 Philadelphia Meeting at Wikipedia

Thank for writing me back.

I don't know if you have time to help me with this. I am having trouble understanding exactly what the objection is here. I don't know if you have time to look at the talk page for the entry for CAIR, but I posted my suggested addition to the article there. I think the problem may be my characterization of what was said at the "1993 Philadelphia Meeting".

Would including the actual statements by the participants at the meeting get around this problem?

I'm sorry about the edit warring, that is not what I am here for. I am here to improve Wikipedia, and to make it more informative.

Livingengine1 (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

For you

You are doing a wonderfull job. God bless you. Thank you very much for your concern. Ezaid Fabber (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Filmi may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ], [[O. N. V. Kurup]] in the [[Malayalam music#Malayalam film music|Malayalam music industry]].((cn}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

A Burger For You

Hi I have got it for you. May God be with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.68.97.248 (talk) 12:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC) Thank you very much.Ezaid Fabber (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Waheed Murad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armaan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Ezaid Fabber!

Happy New Year!

Ezaid Fabber,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Hafspajen (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Fawad Afzal Khan

Hello there, Can you tell me what is not constructive in changing the picture? it's his picture.Rf fangirl (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC) (RF_fangirl)

For your help

	The Special Barnstar
	For your help. Keep it up.

Thank you for your concern and appreciation. Ezaid Fabber (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

A post in Page Wahhed Murad made by me which is removed

I just saw the notification on my page. The edit is removed as it was thought not constructive. I do not mind. I just wanted how a person even from childhood became friend from his school days. I did so as I knew being also a student with them. I did not find any notification for removing some Alumina of Gordon College Pakistan. I included because I know being a student of Gordon College 1953 to 1959. What proof can be given for this?

ASLAM SHERWANI (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC) ASLAM SHERWANI (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC) ASLAM SHERWANI (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC) ASLAM SHERWANI (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Runa Laila, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mala. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Babek (ballet)

Hello, Ezaid Fabber, Babek is ballet written by Azerbaijani composer Agshin Alizadeh. Why do you think we should keep persian name?--Shahrux (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

For once and all I would like to let you know that you are continuously involved in Edit warring and obvious vandalism. Please refrain from doing so and what ever you edit, it must be properly cited.Ezaid Fabber (talk) 19:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. Now can you explain why persian name should be kept ? In the article, nothing is shown about it.--Shahrux (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

You do not seem to get it. What you are doing is edit war and remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground. It is the last time I am telling you to stop vandalism. Ezaid Fabber (talk) 19:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

You also removed referenced information with the name "vandalizm" in Shirali Muslimov. It is also vandalism. I will begin talk in Talk:Babek (ballet). If you have any explanation why you think persian name should be kept in the article about azerbaijanian balet, please write there.--Shahrux (talk) 08:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I have already replied you on your talk page. Ezaid Fabber (talk) 08:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

For your eyes only

You have considerable contributions towards Wikipedia that is why I am sending you a kitten. Stay blessed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.32.96.234 (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your appreciation. Ezaid Fabber (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Your reverts

Hello. Just to let you know that if you have decided to stalk my every edit and revert it, you are stepping on quite a dangerous path of breaking WP:AGF. You reverted my edit to that of a user with only five edits despite the fact that I simply restored the information he had changed randomly without any source. His unexplained edit did not bother you, but my revert to the original information did. While you are right in requesting a source for a certain statement, a more good-faith way of doing so would be inserting a source tag or addressing the issue on the discussion page, instead of reverting to a version by a five-edit user with somewhat unproductive input to Wikipedia. And judging from your edit-warring at Babek (ballet) and this, I am starting to think that this is not a coincidence, because you reverted me again after I provided a source and even went on to call it vandalism. There are multiple issues with your behaviour. Please take some time to read Wikipedia rules; otherwise, and if you continue being disruptive, you may end up being reported. Parishan (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

If you have a problem with a source, you address it on the talkpage. May I also remind you that your constant abuse of the term 'vandalism' in relation to good-faith edits is against WP:NOTVAND. If you fail to substantiate why my reverts constitute vandalism, you will be reported. You may consider this your last warning. Parishan (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. Ezaid Fabber (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I provided a reference to the State Statistics Committee of Azerbaijan. How is this not a reliable source? Parishan (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Rest I have again explained on your talk page. Ezaid Fabber (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I did not cite Wikipedia. I cited a government source. According to Wikipedia rules: "Many reliable sources, such as government and corporate websites, do not name their authors or say only that it was written by staff writers. Although many high-quality sources do name the author, this is not a requirement." Parishan (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on the reliability of the website of the State Statistics Committee of Azerbaijan. Wikipedia says that a government website without an author's name is a reliable source, as I showed you above. Parishan (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I just provided a link to a Wikipedia page where government websites are named among reliable sources 15 minutes ago. Here: Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. It is in the yellow box at the top of the page. It says: "Many reliable sources, such as government and corporate websites, do not name their authors or say only that it was written by staff writers. Although many high-quality sources do name the author, this is not a requirement." Parishan (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not a printout. It is a web cache of the website's page. Are you not familiar at all with how web archiving works? Parishan (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia allows to use web archiving for pages that are not accessible at the moment for whatever reason: Help:Using the Wayback Machine. Parishan (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I would like you to lower your condescending and patronising tone with me. You seem to be the one completely oblivious to how Wikipedia works and your tone is not helping you to get your point across. Second of all, Wikipedia itself provides a tutorial on how to cite archived web pages. I did exactly that when I archived the website of the State Statistics Committee of Azerbaijan. I even referred you to the tutorial. Just because you say "it is not reliable" does not make it unreliable. Show me exactly where Wikipedia says that web archiving is against the rules. Parishan (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The tone you have taken on is patronizing and disrespectful. You are not in the position to "educate me". I am not getting angry: I am giving you a friendly reminder that you are on the brink of violating WP:Civility. If web archiving is not allowed on Wikipedia, how come Wikipedia shows 9,474 references to archived pages which have have been used as reliable sources across different articles? Parishan (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know how web archiving works. I want you to please tell me why you reverted this edit. Parishan (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Just answer the question, please. Parishan (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I have already replied on your talk page.Ezaid Fabber (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

This is all irrelevant. Wikipedia does not prohibit the use of archived pages and even teaches you how to do that. Parishan (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You did not answer the question. If Wikipedia says web archiving is okay, why did you revert my edit? Parishan (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Whether part of the page was hidden or not is irrelevant in this case, as long we the information we need is there. You needed a source stating the population of Qazakh. I provided it, and there was nothing hidden about it. Parishan (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

That IT jargon is not helping your case. The fact is that 9,474 references on Wikipedia have been cited using Web Archive. I do not see a problem with it. Other users do not see a problem with it. Wikipedia does not see a problem with it. The only one who sees a problem with it is you; which makes your argument rather tenuous, to put it softly. Parishan (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

My edits were not vandalism. What is more, by calling my edits vandalism, you are violating WP:ASG. I already told you that Wikipedia does not see a problem with Web Archiving. It is not my opinion. It is in the Wikipedia rules. See Help:Using the Wayback Machine. Also, your deliberate rejection to cooperate and explain your revert (just because you say it is "unreliable" does not make it unreliable) qualifies you for disruptive editing. Parishan (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)