Xpërt100

Welcome!

Hi Xpërt100! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

What are you trying to achieve with the </nowiki> that you entered into the article on Umar?

As you can see, they both look the same. (1) lacks this feature, (2) has it.

1. 'Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭâb ibn Nufayl ibn 'Abdul-'Uzza ibn Riyâḥ ibn 'Abdullah ibn Qurut ibn Razâh ibn 'Adiyy ibn Ka'b ibn Lu'ayy
2. 'Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭâb ibn Nufayl ibn 'Abdul-'Uzza ibn Riyâḥ ibn 'Abdullah ibn Qurut ibn Razâh ibn 'Adiyy ibn Ka'b ibn Lu'ayy

-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The reply: To Bold the " ' " Part before Umar that is :-

1. 'Umar
2. 'Umar Xpërt100 (talk) 10:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Pinging them for you. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#0001} 12:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Manual of style (RW 16.1)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Kriti Kharbanda, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Ab207 (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

But, I have just add her father and mother name and also added linked articles with Wikipedia; this already many of actor and actress articles has! Xpërt100 (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Xpërt100, please go through the instructions at Template:Infobox person; parents should only be added "if they are independently notable or particularly relevant." Also you don't have to link common works like actor and model per MOS:OVERLINK. Regards -- Ab207 (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Small fonts

Per MOS:FONTSIZE, please do not use small font in infoboxes, navboxes or similar items that already use a reduced font. Thanks. DrKay (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks @DrKay! After removing "< small >...< /small >" this, then can I use "{{ small|"... please tell me! Thank Xpërt100 (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

No, they do the same thing. Please don't make infobox text smaller than the infobox already makes it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Both of you! Should I revert those articles, which I did? Xpërt100 (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

You were asked not to put small font in infoboxes, navboxes or similar items that already use a reduced font. But you have just done it again in this edit to Umm Kulthum bint Abi Bakr. -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, when I read it MOS:SMALLFONT; I felt that it has been said to be added this <small>...</small> with replace with {{small}}. It's my mistake.. I am not read it properly, surely I shall improved that I have done mistake before! I Apologize for it! Thanks for telling me @Toddy1 Xpërt100 (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Your CSD nominations

Hello. You've nominated a few articles for speedy deletion today, with a deletion rationale of "Full article based on one reference". That's not a valid reason to speedy delete an article. Please review WP:CSD carefully before nominating any more articles for speedy deletion. Thanks. 2A01:4C8:A6:738:4FF:82E7:7FA3:C70A (talk) 11:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh! Thanks @2A01:4C8:A6:738:4FF:82E7:7FA3:C70A Xpërt100 (talk) 11:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Undid your undo of Muspilli edits

Having just put 10 hours into extensive but universally minor redactions of the article Muspilli, essentially all of which were concerned merely with citation formatting, and most of which are invisible to casual examination, I was shocked and appalled to see your un-do of them all.

I cannot assume anything good from your use of the word "vandalism", and am frankly offended by it. It was either a reactionary remark, or a snide comment, or impatience at the possibility of reviewing extensive changes.

On the hopes that you might come to your senses given time to think. I've restored the changed text. If you have some objection to that change, please let me know on my talk page, and I will try my best to fix whatever you think is broken. Quite frankly, this was a 1 hour fixup that got way out of hand; lacking a call from you to fix up any mess I've made, I won't be looking back. If you redo the undo, I won't reverse it again, but rather take it as a sign that you are incorrigible, and that my time is better spent elsewhere.

Article citation issues

The flaw in the article in its prior form is that the citations were only in text, and not linked to the citations in the bibliography. The flaw (still) with the citations in the bibliography is that they are not in template format. In that form, they cannot be used for any kind of linked reference, including Harvard-style references and HTML "<ref>...</ref>" style. Since the embedded citations (some of them poorly done, since only parenthetic page numbers were used, without author and year) were done in what was approximately "<ref>...</ref>" style, that's what I turned them into.

The citations in the article are sub-standard. They need to be fixed. If you think it's appropriate to erase the fixes that I made, then go and do it your way. Leaving the references as they stood is not okay.

Possible issues with the changes

You might be alarmed that I deleted the parenthetic years embedded along with the authors' names in the text (e.g. "Smith (1892)" became "Smith^[ref#]"), but since that information is already present in the linked to citation, contained in the superscript number, I thought about it and decided that it was unnecessary excess information. The date is in the linked reference.

In order to be conservative, I left the bibliography as-is, in place. Technically, the duplicates references should be weeded out, but I have no great motivation ever to get to that, and planned on leaving it for someone else

If you don't want me to do it, then you could consider taking on the job of

(1) converting every citation to template format. (You might be surprised how many otherwise viable-appearing references are deficient. I was.)

(2) introducing references that are linked. (Perhaps you like "{{harv|Smith|1892}}" form. I don't, since it creates "double-click" reference links, and since many use it incorrectly, by embedding the "harv" template inside a "<ref>...</ref>" wrapper, which it doesn't need and which only makes indirection of the reference worse.

Astro-Tom-ical (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision diffs
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry | Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC) Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry | Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks! @Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry | Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 Xpërt100 (talk) 18:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

No problem! Didn't want to warn you for removing content without an explanation because you seemed to have possibly removed vandalism however without an edit summary I couldn't tell. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry | Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Notice: Incorrect use of minor edits check box

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks! I will remember it. Xpërt100 (talk) 06:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Saad al Ghamdi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macca. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Use of primary sources and NPOV at Darussalam Publishers

You need to find primary sources describing this publisher. Mission statements and claims about fact checking need secondary sources discussing them. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sahih al-Bukhari, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eid.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Xpërt100! Your additions to King Faisal Prize in Service to Islam have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much @DanCherek for re-editing King Faisal Prize in Service to Islam... I'll take care of your points. ---Xpërt100 (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding! DanCherek (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Dr Sachin Kapur Fanclub per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr Sachin Kapur Fanclub. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~TNT (she/they • talk) 19:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

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).

Xpërt100 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

If you read "WP:BP" then you will realize that the main purpose of block of an user or ip address to prevent vandalism (Wikipedia articles). But, if you looks at the contributions I've made over the last month, to make the Wikipedia article better and protect it from vandalism (attackers)...then you'll be realize, I am not that type of person you are finding about.. I am not here to vandalism Wikipedia; I am here to make Wikipedia a good knowledge source. Now, if you think I should be blocked then you also break the rule of blocking policies; it would not to be considered the real blocking policies, it would be WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE. Now it's your choice! I have nothing more to say. I really enjoyed to working here, Wikipedia just a feeling! Thanks!! ---Xpërt100 (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This does not address your violations of WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE. Additionally, your original account was so abusive, it has been globally locked. Yamla (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

---

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.

@Xpërt100: I suggest you read WP:DISRUPTBLOCK, which says: "A user may be blocked when their conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when their conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. A block for disruption may be necessary in response to:...breaching the policies or guidelines, especially sock puppetry..." Have a nice day. -- Toddy1 (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, @Toddy1 for suggesting me! Can you tell me how I'll be unblocked? I'm so sad today...any chance??? Nice to meet you again! Many contributions I have made on Wikipedia, I don't want to leave it, after two days I'll be "extended confirmed user"...any suggestions you have, I'm waiting---Xpërt100 (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Xpërt100: read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks (WP:GAB). Key things are:

1. Make the appeal on your original account.
   What was your first Wikipedia account? Was it Dr Sachin Kapur Fanclub? Or was there an earlier account that was also blocked?
   The unblock request needs to be on your first Wikipedia account.
2. Admit to it.
   As part of the unblock request you need to come clean about the things you did that got you blocked. This will show that you understand why you were blocked (an essential requirement).
   If you have any other sockpuppet accounts (even ones you have not used yet), tell us about them in the unblock request.
3. Give people a reason to trust you again
   Were there any bad behaviours that you did with early socks, that you did not do with later socks? If there were, at least that shows that you were learning to work with other editors to build an encyclopaedia.
4. Don't do it again
5. Tell us why you are here

I would not be surprised if they asked you to wait 6 months. If you use socks during that 6 months, it proves you cannot be trusted. Read the WP:SOCKBLOCK section very carefully. Lots of people who have been blocked come back as productive editors.

If you can, make the unblock request on a user talk page - that way you can get feedback from other editors. The problem with the Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System is that you only get feedback from the people who refused the request. If you make wrong assumptions in your request, you need feedback.

If you are not a sockpuppet, you have a different problem, that of convincing the admins that they are wrong... But I think you are because this month you did 810 edits but the account's first edit was 29th August 2021. This is typical of socks.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited King Faisal Prize, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SR.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)