Changing your userpage doesn't answer my question. Why is your userpage a copy of User:Itaqallah's? Kingturtle (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Falconkhe, you might want to consider telling us a bit about yourself in your own words on your userpage. It doesn't bother me much, but copying word for word from others' introductions may not make yours look as genuine as it could be ;). Just something to consider.ITAQALLAH 15:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Welcome!
Hello, Falconkhe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Kingturtle (talk) 13:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, I noticed you have a request in at peer review which has not yet received any response besides the semi-automated script. Have you tried requesting a peer review from the volunteers list? Another idea is to review someone else's request (particularly one from the list of requests without responses), then ask that they look at your request. Hope these are helpful suggestions and help to get some feedback for your request soon, APRt 20:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Salam alaykum, I noticed your edits to the Sufism template. The page you suggested I check (http://sufiesaints.s5.com/try4.html) doesn't actually provide any sources for its claims; it literally just says that he was Sufi and leaves it at that. That's not really a proper reference, especially considering that the site (which hit me with three pop ups when I visited the home page) appears to be the personal home page of someone named "Janya". When we look at historical claims, we generally should stick to academic type references. If you check the actual article for Hasan al Basri, I think you'll see what i'm talking about. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You have several times reverted my edits on this page to a Fake and abusive name which is totally against the wiki policies.Stop now Otherwise You will be Complained.Shabiha(t) 20:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
At the risk of sounding rude, I want to politely ask you to stop threatening me with being blocked from editing. As per this site, I am allowed to do as such. In regards the the article I keep editing...why do you keep reverting my edits? I am simply removing misinformation and adding what I think is factual. And anyway, if you find some of the information I add to be misguided, why don't you simply IMPROVE it instead of declaring it completely wrong?? I'm sure we can find some common ground so we can collectively improve the article..you just need to be willing. Please stop being unreasonable...its just an article.(Omirocksthisworld (talk))
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'm afraid I've not fulfilled your request. At present you appear to be engaged in an editing dispute. Please feel free to ask again in the future. Pedro : Chat 09:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Please do not create unconstructive or misleading conceptions regarding anybody on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is a site dependent on reliable and reputable sources or references. Please do not at all use abusive language regarding or directed to anyone as you have done so on both Messiah Foundation International and Younus AlGohar, such as 'dirty soul'. Thanks.Nasiryounus (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Imam Mehdi Gohar Shahi. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Woogee (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Imam Mehdi Gohar Shahi. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Woogee (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There is an ongoing edit war in the article Sufism in the Sufi Sheikhs -> Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi sub-section of the article. Could we please discuss this issue on the talk page? See Wikipedia:Edit war. Thanks. Esowteric+Talk 09:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Hello. I made RAGS International a disambiguation page to avoid disputes and edit wars between editors. However I noticed you have been editing it to make it a redirect to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi- I find this strange that you are doing this when the disambiguation page links to that very article anyway. I made a section on the talk page (Talk: RAGS International) where I'd like us to discuss this peacefully as to avoid any edit wars that could come out from misunderstanding. Thank you. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC))Reply
In light of your recent edit summaries, among which you wrote "I totally disagree with what Omirocksthisworld he has said. This page belongs to gohar shahi and nobody allowed to use the name of HH gohar shahi for his own HIDDEN AGENGA" when editing Imam Mehdi Gohar Shahi and "Your conspiracy to defame HH gohar shahi would never be successful." when editing RAGS International, I can see that you are under the wrong impression. First of all, even if I was trying to defame Gohar Shahi, as you suggest, how would I be doing so by making a disambiguation page? Secondly, I would like to remind you that on Wikipedia there is something called objective perspective in relation to articles. Please maintain it, and read Wikipedia: Five Pillars for the core "rules" that Wikipedia runs on. (Omi☺ 19:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC))Reply
Please see my comment concerning your removal of references on Talk:Younus AlGohar. I'd appreciate it if you could explain what exactly it is that you would like done to the article. You stated before that it didn't have enough references, so I thought I would add those references. However you reverted them saying in your edit summary that, "why you are playing Carousel with wikipedia?". I'd like you to please, please, please remain civil and assume good faith with your fellow editors- I am doing what I can to help with the article. Please reply on Talk:Younus AlGohar. Thanks. Omi(☺) 07:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Greetings, please do not confuse my support for proper WP procedure with support for whatever sect you favour. I don't care in the slightest whether Gohar Shahi is the Mahdi or not, and I will not "look into it". Wikipedia is not the place for investigative journalism. I'm quite satisfied if Gohar Shahi's article says "according to such-and-such, Shahi never claimed to be the Mahdi (footnote)" and then the MFI page says "members of MFI believe Shahi to the the Mahdi." Whether Shahi is the Madhi or no is completely beyond the scope of Wikipedia and of zero interest to neutral editors. Again, please refrain from using POV terms such as "His Holiness", "dirty soul", etc. as it impedes your credibility as an editor. MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Arguments such as "was Shahi the Mahdi or not" and "does MFI have a right to call themselves followers of Shahi" are not topics that Wikipedia is going to solve. WP simply compiles existing history, which in this case is that "X says he was Mahdi, Y says he was not." You can't simply insist that MFI was wrong and expect their article to be deleted, or "big dirty liars" to be included in the lede. Why is it so hard for your to grasp the concept of objectivity? MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
More on the Disambiguation pages relating to Gohar Shahiedit
Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments1 person in discussion
Hi. I hope you aren't offended by my recent reverting of your edits on RAGS International and The Representative of Gohar Shahi. Although I agree with what MatthewVanitas said on Talk: Imam Mehdi Gohar Shahi that the page really only should be redirected to the Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi article because its a title used for him, I thought that there is an expectation of confusion regarding the first two pages I mentioned. I hope you aren't offended, but I would also really appreciate it if you could use more descriptive edit summaries than "please don't change page" when you revert someones edits. I do think we have gotten off on the wrong footing here, and I really hope these edits are not taken personally. Take care. Omi(☺) 23:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Clearly, considering your recent revert to RAGS International, you seem to have some issues still with it being a disambiguation page. I have addressed the problems you seem to have (judging your edit summary, where you said "This page belong to gohar shahi and gohar shahi was founder of ASI not MFI. Thus the page should be re-directed to gohar shahi artcile") in a section titled "Disambiguation vs. Redirect" on Talk: RAGS International. Kindly respond there. Omirocksthisworld(☺) 00:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Could we please discuss The Representative of Gohar Shahi and RAGS International on the respective talk pages? Your recent edits, where your default edit summary seems to be "This page belong to gohar shahi and gohar shahi was founder of ASI not MFI. Thus the page should be re-directed to gohar shahi artcile", suggest that you clearly have some issues that need to be discussed. I have addressed your concerns about the various organizations relating to Gohar Shahi- can we please discuss it there and reach a consensus? Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 10:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Since we can't seem to decide, lets just discuss it here. Personally, I think that there is a reasonable expectation for confusion on this page, as it does refer to more than one thing. For example, both Younus AlGohar and Messiah Foundation International consider themselves representative of Gohar Shahi. At the same time, this page obviously relates to Gohar Shahi himself, and I also think that, naturally, Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam would consider themselves as representatives of Gohar Shahi. I looked up ASI, but they don't have a wikipedia page, the page simply redirects to the Gohar Shahi page. Therefore I think to give an overall view of what relates to this title, it would be best to include all links in a disambiguation page. Omi(☺) 00:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd really appreciate it if you could reply on the talk page. Thanks Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 10:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Hi again. Your [recent reverts to the Gohar Shahi pages show that you do seem to have the time to make those edits... contributing to the discussion shouldn't take much more time. As you are the only editor who seems to oppose the disambiguation, I'd really appreciate you discussing the pros and cons of it on the respective talk pages. I have reverted your edits and kept it a disambiguation page, as most other editors seem to agree with it remaining a disambiguation. Could you at least provide a valid reason for the reverts? Thanks. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 06:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Once again, if you have the time to do this, and this, discussing why on the respective talk pages won't take much longer. Please be cooperative and give a good reason for having those pages as redirects instead of disambiguation pages (which incidentally already include the link you keep redirecting to). Keep in mind, please, to keep sectarian quarrels out of it (i.e X doesnt deserve the title because they don't belong to Gohar Shahi). Its about objectiveness- trying to improve overall coverage of the subject. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 06:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Please refrain from changing my comments in discussion boards, as you have done so in the discussion board of Messiah Foundation International. I understand that we are to assume good faith with fellow editors, but please do not drag your sectarian issues to such a point where sanity is lost.-- NY7 ☆ 22:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
I've adding back the article to Category: Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi because, as I said to User:Spiritualism, "the subject seems related to Gohar Shahi. I'm sorry, but like it or not the article Younus AlGohar does clearly fall under this category - since, of course, he made an organization thats supposed to 'follow the teachings of Gohar Shahi'. I hope you are not offended." I'm sorry, regardless of your clear biases, you cannot continue to make bad-faith edits like this. Your input on the Gohar Shahi articles are appreciated because you present a different viewpoint, but please contribute to them constructively instead of doing what you consider to be the "truth". Wikipedia is about verifiability, not "truth" as you may see it to be. See Wikipedia:Verifiability.
By the way, I've reverted this edit you did to User:Nasiryounus 's talk page. Falconkhe, you were the one changing other's comments, not nasir. Please stop this kind of behavior- it seems very dodgy and very similar to the behavior of blocked IP's who vandalised my talk page in the same way (before I got my page semi-protected, that is). Falconkhe, please start cooperating or consider working on other articles where you won't let edits get so personal. I have no problem with your constructive edits, but removing Younus AlGohar from Category: Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi because "No, he is not associated with Gohar Shahi, if he would be he should have followed teaching of gohar shahi but contrary to that he made his own cult" makes no sense and show a very obvious COI. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 06:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion
Hello, Falconkhe. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding recent edits and comments. The discussion is about the topic User:Falconkhe. Thank you.I hope you are not offended, but I feel that this way we can get closer to dispute resolution as opposed to reporting behavior on other noticeboards, where unlike this one, certain behavior would be punishable. Take care. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 08:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
I've reverted your edits on RAGS International, The Representative of Imam Mehdi, The Representative of Gohar Shahi because you made the pages redirects with the reason being "the opposing parties have yet to provide a good reason for disambiguation". On the contrary, I made specific sections on the relevant talk pages discussing the pros and cons of having a disambiguation page, and why I thought it was necessary to keep them so. In response to my reasons, you rather made accusatory comments (i.e "Condisering is another thing by consider yourself you can't be representative of any personality. This is a fact you are lier, your leader younus is a lier and your orgnization i.e. MFI is based upon a lie. Therefore, MFI and Younas are not representative of gohar shahi and you can't make this or related pages disambiguation.") which only prove your COI here, and does not provide a reason for this Wikipedia page to be a redirect. I explained the reasons why I think it should be a disambiguation page. I'm sorry if you disagree, but you are going to need to provide a good reason for the page to be a redirect from a neutral perspective. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 09:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Also in regards to your recent edit summary on RAGS International for when you reverted my edits- you said, "The discussion is going on BTW you are a party and you are not supposed to take any action, leave this to administrators of wikipedia". In order to avoid more unnecessary warring, I've left it. Please remember, though, that Wikipedia is not about winning. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 11:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
If you think I am sockpuppeting, then ask for an investigationedit
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Look Falconkhe, just because I reverted your unexplained reverts and removal of articles from categories, theres no reason to resort to accusing me of sockpuppeting in an attempt to distract from your nonconstructive, POV-pushing edits such as this edit, with a VERY POV edit summary. I've had enough. If you really think I'm a sockpuppet of Nasiryounus, then by all means, report me and ask for an investigation. I have nothing to hide, but I am very annoyed with your constant accusations. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 07:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
What other ID? And how am I trying to promote Younus AlGohar? If I was, I wouldn't actually be cooperating with neutral editors -and editors such as yourself who have such a strong opposition to anything that sounds remotely positive about the subject- to actually improve the article. If I had a conflict of interest, I wouldn't be requesting neutral editors who would be less biased than me to comment on issues there are disputes about concerning the subject. You, on the other hand, constantly avoid discussion, and when a remedy to your supposed "issue" is suggested (i.e OMI is sockpuppeting) you, instead of addressing it and acting in good faith, change your direction and resort to other accusations. Its very clear to me now that you have been relentlessly stalking me (i.e on talk pages of admins) and that consensus is clearly not on your mind. I don't think dispute resolution is going to work with you when you are so clearly bent on pushing your POV and not cooperating with others. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 08:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
An editor has requested for those who strongly oppose keeping the name of the article as it is to please leave a clear explanation on why in terms of Wikipedia policy. I seem to remember you having a very strong opinion on it, so could you please leave your comments on Talk: Younus AlGohar? This way, we can resolve the matter once and for all. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 07:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
RFC: Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi and associated pagesedit
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, your recent edit to the article reverted my own, as well as others', copyediting and addition of information/references. If you see Talk: Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi you'll see that there is a general agreement (that you seemed to agree to as well) that this article is a BLP. Could you explain your reasoning for this edit on the talk page (since your recent edit says that Shahi had apparently died as well)? Thanks. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 07:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 12:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Younus AlGohar. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. — Scientizzle 19:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
You seriously need to give evidence in your defence at the sockpuppet investigation, which has already confirmed use of sockpuppets. What I mean is, "voting" twice as in Talk:Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi#Protected version may be seen as a continuing violation of WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT. Esowteric+Talk 13:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at AN/I regarding possible meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry. The discussion is about the topic User: Falconkhe and User:Asikhi. Thank you. Esowteric+Talk 11:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Your editing behavior has seriously violated community standards. Asikhi (talk·contribs) has now been blocked as well. Abusive sockpuppetry is completely inappropriate and has destroyed and credibility or trust you may have earned. If you evade your block again, I will extend the block of this username to indefinite, a result that will likely be viewed as a de factocommunity ban. If you want any chance of providing any influence on the topics about which you seem to care deeply, you will respect the block and commit no further editing violations. — Scientizzle 17:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Given all that has been discovered (detailed here), I have extended the block on this account to indefinite.
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).
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.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Nusrullah Khan Noori. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nusrullah Khan Noori. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Kindly unblock me as soon as possible.--Falconkhe (talk) 08:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
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).
This does not address the reason for your block in any more detail than your previous request. You need to convince us why you are not socking despite the evidence presented against you. Sandstein 09:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
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.
I don't know, what's the matter but this is fact that I was not socking.--Falconkhe (talk) 09:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Pretty blatant violations of WP:SOCK continue even today. Don't you see that you have ruined any reasonable chance for constructive editing here through your deceits? I tried awfully hard to get you to realize this, to reform your editing habits, but you ignored my advice. Editing on Wikipedia is a privelage and you have abused that privelage. — Scientizzle 12:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Please do not create unconstructive or misleading conceptions regarding anybody on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is a site dependent on reliable and reputable sources or references. Please do not at all use abusive language regarding or directed to anyone as you have done so on both Messiah Foundation International and Younus AlGohar, such as 'dirty soul'. Thanks.Nasiryounus (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Imam Mehdi Gohar Shahi. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Woogee (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Imam Mehdi Gohar Shahi. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
