AllahLovesYou

AllahLovesYou or not, but your repeated vandalism of Shia Islam in Pakistan has been crossing limits. I am warning you that your repeated vandalism will jeopardize your account, you have no right to remove the cited information with your own point of view. Article needs to be elaborate and in detail, giving readers an entire perspective of the scenario rather then one side of the story. Hence your repeated violation of Wikipedia policy and 3RR, I'll be left with no option instead of reporting you to the Block Admin. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you find a problem with any of my edits please use the talk pages and discuss your concern in an appropiate manner, that is how Wikipedia works, but please don't post messages to me like the one you just did. Wikipedia articles are not made for the general public to spread their own theories, POVs and etc. My edits are backed by all the top academic sources and I removed unreliable news reports such as this one, which has no bases for the 30% Pakistani Muslims being Shias. The editor of that news article (Sukaina Hussain) used "US Department of State's Country Report from 2008" and Vali Nasr's The Shia Revival book as references, which actually disagree with her 30% figures completely. Vali Nasr claims that Pakistani Shias are up to "30 million" [1] out of the total 170 million people of the country. Sukaina made an error by reporting 30% instead of 30 million. Therefore, we can't use her as a reliable source in Wikipedia.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Instead of giving others incentives about removing reliable sources you better look into you own edits, my edits are stating all the giving facts, this source is from a third party hence considered reliable by Wikipedia, 30% figure is not a made up number it has a reason to it. Infact Shia of Pakistan consider themselves to be one-third of the Muslim population in the country. Hence it seems like i am dealing with just another anti-Shia. Removing cited information is considered a serious 3RR, you better forsee and review your own edits regarding this repeated vandalism of yours. Instead of reminding others about the Wiki-norms you better first pay a review. All the sources mentioned above were cited by me, infact i was the one that made improvement to this article. Wikipedia is all about stating facts, and some of them are hard to digest. The initial info of the article is an overview regarding all the aspects of the Shia Muslims population in Pakistan. It need improvement not your personal theories of which source is reliable and which isn't. You should keep in mind that self-published sources are likely to be challenged rather then other sources. I have also noticed your BOGUS edits here simply portrays your sectarian mindset, while inciting hatred against Shia Muslims by adding false info, and tampering the cited material. This bizarre attitude can not be tolerated on Wikipedia. The Shia Islam article needs improvement not your vandalism. One more attempt of vandalism and I'll be left with no option other then acting upon on what i said you earlier. Hope you are sensible enough to understand, rather then considering this as a matter of your personal or sectarian ego. I have also came across your so called academic clean up (Vandalism) of other article, like Islam in Pakistan and Religion in Pakistan. Before editing articles you should reach a consensuses on their respective talk page. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 08:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This change to the Shia Islam article has me confused. Why did you remove one reference to the Pew Research Center's Mapping the Global Muslim Population: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Muslim Population (named "mgmpPRC" and using the {{Cite book}} citation) and replace it with two references to the same Pew Research Center report (one titled "PRC" with the {{cite web}} citation, and the other named "PRCPDF" with the {{Cite book}} citation)? I can understand your addition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, but cannot parse your change to the Pew reference, especially since it required multiple edits ([2], [3], [4]) to fix all the citations you just broke. — Kralizec! (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I didn't remove those references, I just gave them easy names for easy access. One is "PRC" (Pew Research Center) and the other "PRCPDF" (Pew Research Center PDF for the format). The "mgmpPRC" was slightly confusing. The reason I added both PRC and PRCPDF is that in case the one link doesn't work the other will be there to help readers, and the PRC can be quickly verified but the PRCPDF takes alot of reading to do. I hope you understand.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

"Confusing" is in the eye of the beholder, and the only people beholding the internal reference name are those editing the article ... and presumably any editor savvy enough to understand and use citation templates is also going to figure out that "mgmpPRC" stands for "Mapping the Global Muslim Population (published by the) Pew Research Center." Perhaps the reference name was cumbersome, but that also makes it unique, and having a unique name would have allowed future Pew studies to be added into the article without renaming all of the old references (so a report on the "Dynamics of the Shia Population" could have been added as "dspPRC" or "Projected Growth in the Muslim Population" as "pgmpPRC"). Having generic reference names like "PRC" just makes more work for later editors.

Regardless of if you do not like the reference names used by previous editors to the article, having duplicate references to the exact same work (but in different formats) is misleading, as it makes it look like statements have been sourced to multiple references. As such, you need to go back and consolidate all of the "PRCPDF" and "PRC" citations down to one citation. If you feel really strongly about having both HTML and PDF versions available to the reader, then I might suggest adding "|archiveurl=http://pewforum.org/Muslim/Mapping-the-Global-Muslim-Population%286%29.aspx" to the {{Cite book}} reference, as this should make both versions appear in the citation. — Kralizec! (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I just realized that "mgmpPRC" is in use in many articles so I'll change my "PRCPDF" name back to the previous "mgmpPRC". I'll leave the other as "PRC" for now.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Using multiple citations in an article to point to two different formats of the exact same reference work is misleading. Please fix this. — Kralizec! (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Since you were not willing to do understand what i said you earlier, and you rather went on blackmailing me. I notified the Admin regarding your misconduct. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Don't just accuse the article's neutrality only because you disagree with so, keep your sectarian and biased POVs aside else bring some reliability in your accusations. You are most welcome to rewrite or shuffle the entire article nevertheless any edits of yours without reliable citations will be reverted and you shall be reported for distortion and vandalism which you have been doing since few days in Shia Islam in Pakistan and Shia Islam and various articles associated with Shiite Islam which you have vandalizing without any judgment and citation.

One thing which was hilarious on your part is in your message when you mentioned that you will rewrite when you get a chance, that shows that you have no references with you still accuse the article being a MESS. Not good editing etiquette.

So far this article is concerned, this has been based on various reliable and authentic local and international citations. Citations used from various below mentioned sources:

Britannica Book of the year 1997

• PEW Research Center
• BBC World
• Adherents.com
• Thaindian News
• Times of India
• Indian Express
• Daily News and Analysis
• The Tribune

None of the above sources are owned or run by Shiites, apart from these various International publications are used to support the article again none Shiite publishing, so bring some citation to challenge the authenticity of the article before calling it as a MESS.Humaliwalay (talk) 06:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have cold that's my reason for the wait. Don't falsely accuse me, I didn't vandalize any pages. On the other hand, you tried to remove Library of Congress info. The Pew Research Center is a reliable source but I don't know about all these newspaper reports, they don't use references as to where they got the figures. I came across some errors, for example this shows Oman as 75% Shia but this showes it only 2% Shia. I basically wanted the argument presented in the intro to be moved to another section (i.e. Demographics).--AllahLovesYou (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

First of all Vali Nasr and also PEW center are not representatives of Shiite Population in India, and Indian medias like TOI and DNA are trusted ones and also derive the information from reliable statistical and expert opinions. Whereas the PEW center states the following with regards to it's authenticity so you better first refer that before claiming a source's neutrality.

"Readers should bear in mind that the figures given in this report for the Sunni and Shia populations are less precise than the figures for the overall Muslim population. Data on sectarian affiliation have been infrequently collected or, in many countries, not collected at all. Therefore, the Sunni and Shia numbers reported here are expressed as broad ranges and should be treated as approximate." In-spite of that PEW figures are included so what else you need, off-course TOI and DNA report are more authentic as they are known trusted and are much more in touch with Indian Census experts than Vali Nasr and PEW. Here is the link - http://pewforum.org/uploadedfiles/Orphan_Migrated_Content/Muslimpopulation.pdf

Humaliwalay (talk) 05:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

It has been noticed that you keep on distorting the article Criticism of Sunni Islam multiple times, without any explanation. If you disagree with any thing, please tag the article rather than blanking almost entire article and replacing them with completely unrelated material like here [5]. This has been done earlier by you as well like here [6] and here [7] and you removed the disputed tags here [8] - Humaliwalay (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please refrain from making accusations based on generalisations of religious or ethnic affiliations like you did here. These kinds of slurs are not tolerated on Wikipedia. If you are unable to discuss the matter in a cool-headed neutral manner you should consider giving yourself a voluntary topic-ban. Thank you. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

The user there was asking me to reveal his religion and I did just that. That is not a slur, and you're not involved in that discussion so who are you to come here and speak for Humaliwalay? If I was wrong in anyway the admins involved in there would have adviced me if anything.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 09:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am an editor on Wikipedia, just like you and the administrators are, and I care about keeping a good editing environment by sticking to the guidelines in this essay. That any admins that may have been present have not notified you, has perhaps more to do with the fact that they may be busy answering questions on the reliability of sources. I kindly ask you once more please refrain from making generalisations on the editing behaviour of another editor based on religion or ethnicity. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok thanks for sharing this. I wasn't trying to descriminate him by calling him a Shia Muslim, I wanted the other editors to know why he was opposing the source of info (LoC) coming from USA. There is a stand going on between the US and Iran, which is the primary Shia nation. It's well understood that most Shias around the world favor Iran over USA. There's no reason to get emotional about this, we are only here as students and teachers trying to help this project for those who seek knowledge. You can see my edits are correcting information. Humaliwalay is attacking me by calling me childish and blaming me that my edits incite sectarian hatred [9], I'm not doing that but correcting falsifications in articles. This may be bothering to some Shias but I'm not doing anything against Wikipedia's guidelines. I don't know why you used "ethnicity" because that's not my field and I haven't mentioned anything relating to that.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 10:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for taking back the words. "Ethnicity" was my mistake based on a misreading of your post, sorry about that. But once again cheers for your cooperation, I really appreciate it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

You reverted edits and added own POV without reaching a consensus here [10] and then again here [11] your edits do not relate with the cited references. Refer below the citation:

Caption of the Picture says that - Majority Sunnis are often blamed for violence against Shi'as

Then says in article -

The militant Islamic groups banned in Pakistan include two groups which have been often blamed for a stream of sectarian violence in the country.

The Islamic Sunni Sipah-e-Sahaba and the Shia [Not Iranian Trained] Tehrik-e-Jafria have been accused of attacking followers of the rival sects. If you have any differences on the reliability of BBC then please take it on WP:RS/N rather than hampering the article.

Also you reinstated the tags here without any explanation and deleted sentences which co-relate with the contents of the article here [12]Humaliwalay (talk) 07:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

• The caption "Majority Sunnis are often blamed for violence against Shi'as" is a copyright violation when you copy paste that in Wikipedia and you can be blocked for this. Just because BBC mentions this it doesn't mean all Sunnis in Pakistan attack Shias. That's not the case. The fact is that only Sunni radical militant groups attack Shias.
• Tehrik-e-Jafria was founded by a student of Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini and you still don't think it was not Iranian trained?[13]

I'm not interested in arquing with you over these things here and I don't want you to write on my talk page anymore when you're suppose to do that on the talk pages of the articles. Involve other editors or take these things to dispute resolution. I ask you nicely now to take this else where and I'll leave comments there if I wish to do so.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have declined the CSD on Criticism of Sunni Islam, while the article has issues it does not meet the CSD criteria G1, please take to AfD if you wish to have it deleted. Codf1977 (talk) 07:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok, no problem, I took the issue to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Sunni Islam.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 07:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have noticed. One point however when you nom an article for AfD you must inform the editor who created it, I see no evidence you did this in this case. Codf1977 (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'll remember to do this next time and I think I may have missed that part of the instruction. I didn't worry much because I'm very sure that User:Humaliwalay would quickly notice it because he/she is very focused on the article that is nominated.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 08:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

why have you accused me so hastily of sockpuppetry? do a quick search and you will find there are shia balochis. what do you think the president of pakistan is? Ans: balochi shia. i did not reference it because it is so obviously known.Artefactual (talk) 10:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

You edited the Baloch people article exactly like User:SyedNaqvi90, he just recently claimed Baloch Shias but was unable to find any source for that, and now you come and make the same source-less claim. Very few editor's would be interested in adding Shia to the article since this is very unknown, and even very few among those few would do such thing without providing a source. Asif Ali Zardari's sect is not clearly verified, it's a dubious claim. Even if he was Shia, which isn't clear, that doesn't make Baloch people Shia.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 07:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

nowhere did i say that all baloch were shia. i clearly said they were a minority. but they do exist. anyway i would prefer if you respond to my talk page. not very fair if i have to visit your talk page about a issue you started.Artefactual (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

The more you argue over this the more I'm convinced that you are User:SyedNaqvi90, and I didn't accuse you of turning all Baloch to Shias. In Wikipedia you must cite a reliable source, it's useless to argue without providing sources. This person (Strider11) is also using multiple IDs. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Strider11--AllahLovesYou (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I observed several Shia beliefs sections in Islam related articles that was removed by you. Read WP:ownership and try to stop such behavior, else you will encounter problem. Thank you. --Aliwiki (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Several Shia beliefs sections in Islam related articles that was removed by me? I'm sorry I don't understand what you're trying to tell me.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Your edits on Islamic pages contrast WP:Ownership policy. Islamic articles must reflect ideas of all groups and sects, not just a group. Take into account when a theology idea is discussed like a religion, number of population who follow a special theology is not a criterion for comparison that theology with the other one.--Aliwiki (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Humaliwalay (talk) 06:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Humaliwalay (talk) 06:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you.

No one is promoting religion please stop highlighting beliefs which you are known for. Humaliwalay (talk) 08:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

That is not a personal attack. Your contributions is very obvious to everyone that you are promoting the Shia sect of Islam and I probably mentioned this only so that other editors get to understand the situation better. Please do not leave too many messages on my talk page, I find this very annoying.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

When you do something wrong its worth to be mentioned and brought to your kind notice, exactly I did that. If you find this annoying can't help it. - Humaliwalay (talk) 13:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

To you everything I do is wrong but the admins have disagreed with you when they rejected your accusations. Out of anger you are now attacking my talk page by leaving more bogus warning messages. I'm a busy married man who do other things besides Wikipedia and I don't have time for childish games.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello, have a break again. I did not ask your marital status. And something that made me laugh that you claim to be busy man and still you keep on accusing me and others just to somehow win the opinion of admins and block our accounts forever. You first accused me of Sock-puppetry case of Syed Naqvi then now you have accused me of FaizHaider's. For you all Shias on Wikipedia are socks of each other. Secondly you say that I accuse you time and again and Admins disagree with me. Have a look at the series of accusations you there at me and Admins disagreed with you. Humaliwalay (talk) 05:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you Humaliwalay (talk) 06:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Reply