" 

 ==    == 

 Hi Anna, very soory if I have offended Wikipaedia rules but I cant understand why. In the 2006 ball tampering story above what I have added all quotes are given an dI hav eonly reported facts. 

 Please educate me on how I apply for 'vandalism' so i dont repeat this in future. 

 thank you 

 Sohaib 

 :Maybe I should not have considered your edit vandalism, but as a general rule, you must provide reliable sources that back any controversial additions to articles. Before restoring your edit, please tell me the details of where (the newspaper or magazine or TV program) you read that, so that I can add it to the article. Regards, '  

 == ahum == 

 Why did you delete my pages ? they were important things and now i cant see them or read the amazing things i wrote  —Preceding unsigned comment added by   •    

 :I nominated Tia thompson for deletion because, as said on your talk page, the person was not notable enough to deserve an article at Wikipedia. For more information read WP:BIO. '  

 == YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE TO EXPLAIN YOURSELF ON HOW I VANDALIZED A PAGE. == 

 The left right paradigm is ACCURATE, not a conspiracy theory. EXPLAIN YOUR SELF!!!!    

 :Please don't shout, there's no need to do so. To make such controversial edits, you should provide reliable sources that back your claims. '  

 == Why are you not an admin? == 

 I wonder why you're not an admin.    

 ::Hi, thanks a lot for trusting me for the post. I realise that my main contributions are fighting vandalism, and that is not enough to become an admin. Article building, taking part in noticeboards, and such is expected. Cheers, '  

 :By the way, a few rollbackers I've sampled, tend to all have average edits per page around 1.5. Totally unscientific.    

 ::Yep, that's what I mean. One should concentrate on some articles and raise them to FA/GA/DYK, therefore having more edits per article. '  
 :::Unfortunately true. I worry that the RfA process has become political, and I don't think that's healthy in the long term. You and I tend to edit at the same time, so we see the same things, and the same problems. Thanks for the support. I appreciate it.    

 ::::You're welcome -) You appear a lot in my Huggle window. '  

 == Urgent complain - Wikipedia == 

 You've said that the edit I made is not constructive. How could you say that the article reverted (Criticism of Islam) back is constructive. The register, mood, and aim of the article reverted is distructive. You should take into account that nobody is allowed to make a criticising remark on anything and even with rubbish register of language. 

 Reply me and be direct to me and discuss this otherwise Wikipedia is gonna be fired. If the articles such this are to posted on here who'd trust primacy and validity of the content. Therefore for ensuring proved content on every website, it's primarily necessary to make some rules to be followed when publishing something. 

 This is urgent mail. I'm here online so get back to me. 
   faz_kn 

 :Your attempts to blank or discredit the article ""Criticism of Islamism"" by ""making it invalid"" will not succeed because