User talk:Am Not New

Tahir ul Qadri

Tahir ul Qadri is Sunni not a Barelwi. He spoke clearly against Barelwis in the following video, please watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uijQPWfqGFM Hasseniqbal192 (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aslam o Alikum here i recieved your message.i respect your contributation.Dear user.he is barelvi.it is proved from his books.Ilm al-Ghayb (Book on the Knowledge of the Unseen).al-Mawlid an-Nabawiyy ([blessings and peace be upon him)] Celebration of Mawlid] The largest ever written work on this subject, consisting of approximately 850 pages).Kitab at-Tawassul (Book on Intermediation).Kitab ash-Shafaa (Book on Intercession).Kitab al-Baraka (Book on Blessings).Kitab az-Ziyara (Book on Visiting the Graves).not even this He is linked to Imam Ahmad Raza Khan via only one teacher through three different routes^[1].and you can see Sir Tahir ul Qadri celebrating milad in newpapers.these are fundandamental beliefs of only only barelvi.and dont remove it without some proper source.it is against guidelines.Dil e Muslim talk 17:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Provide one source that categorically states that he is a Barelwi. Original research and your personal deduction is not a basis for editing a page to add a claim. Hasseniqbal192 (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation

I am here if you want to Talk to me.

April 2013

Hello, I'm I dream of horses. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Talk:Fatwa on Terrorism, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 18:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was abusive so i tried removed it.this was only "talk" on this page so i had to leave the page blank.

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Barelvi. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts/readding you have made on Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly readding other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

The source provided by you is not a reliable source, wikipedia does not consider official websites as a reliable source. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can 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 you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Justice007 (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

see there are many other things refrenced from official site.BTW For those who were questioning my sources added another refrence from zemtv.com.Dil e Muslim talk 16:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Am Not New, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Am Not New! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit wars

Your recent editing history at Tahir ul Qadri shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Please provide a reference that states that he is a Barelwi rather than engaging in an edit war based on your original research. Hasseniqbal192 (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i already warned you here that you are engaged in edit war on this page.

this is my last version in which i discribed that Tahir ul qadri is Barelvi

now about sources

i gave you refrence no 7 from a tv channel from zem tv.in this refrence Tahir ul Qadri is celebrating milad(Muhammad PBUH birthday).this festival milad is a basic and important fetival of Barelvi proof here.
Ilm al-Ghayb (Book on the Knowledge of the Unseen) is the book of Tahir ul Qadri.and Ilm al-Ghayb is fundmental believe of Barelvi movement see here here
he has written al-Mawlid an-Nabawiyy BOOK on Celebration of Mawlid.milad is also a fundamental belief of barelvi see here
another book Kitab az-Ziyara Book on Visiting the Graves.it is also fundalmental belief of barelvi see here fourth line.

he is a true and solid Barelvi.

Dont ever try to give fake warning to users.Dil e Muslim talk 16:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NPA, Am Not New. The warning is perfectly valid, as it is about edit warring, not whether either edit is correct or not. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

.this rule is for 24 hours see edit history lukeno i have not made any constent revert within 24 hours.there is difference of 24 hours.Dil e Muslim talk 17:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR is over a course of 24 hours, however, there are other types of edit-warring. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

see above what the templete is saying.Dil e Muslim talk 18:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation."

it is the statement of three revert rule.there is rule of 24 hours.Dil e Muslim talk 18:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're misunderstanding the template. The template isn't just about WP:3RR, it's about WP:EW, which encompasses a lot more than the three-revert-rule. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

22 April 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Tahir ul Qadri, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Tahir ul Qadri. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.

Please provide at least one reliable secondary or tertiary source that states that Qadri is a Barelwi rather than making your own deductions. Hasseniqbal192 (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr these sources are reliable.these are books published by notable publising house.and there is another source from a third nutral party.Dil e Muslim talk 19:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not dedicating.it is completly visible.my sourcess are authentic.Dil e Muslim talk 19:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources you refer to explicitly state that Tahir ul Qadri is a Barelwi. Please find reputable sources that state this. Deducing that he is a Barelwi from his works is your opinion and research and cannot form the basis for your edit. ZemTV and other user posted video clips are original sources and not reliable references that you can cite. Tommyfenton (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

all beliefs.practsis,sayings,and works, of tahir ul qadri demonstrate that he is barelvi.zemtv is a notable tv channel.Dil e Muslim talk 20:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

third party proofs

the main reason is that he want to call himself with term ahlesunnat wa jamaat which most barelvi like.see first paragraph of article Barelvi. he want to call himself with word barelvi word ahlesunnah or some other word it doesnt matter.it is based on his beliefs.and he is barelvi see here he is a barelvi declared by a newspaper.and not even this he and minhaj ul quran(his orgnization) is also declared barelvi by some well known authors in journal "Producing Islamic Knowledge. Transmission and Dissemination in Western Europe" Edited by Martin van Bruinessen and Stefano Allievi Dil e Muslim talk 09:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notification

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This is related to the disputes at the Barelvi article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tahir ul Qadri

If you are interested in what Tahir-ul-Qadri thinks of the Barelvi movement. Please watch the following short clip, where he states that he is neither Barelvi or Deobandi. He believes that both sub-movements have different views, but both are part of Ahl-us-Sunnah wal Jama'ah. Tommyfenton (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-VZh3Fcvs4[reply]

dear bro you are misssunderstanding.he is not disliking barelvis.the only thing here to understand is that he only want to use name ahla sunnah wa jamaat instead of barelvi.Dil e Muslim talk 07:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Pass a Method. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Pass a Method talk 13:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Sunni Islam. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Pass a Method talk 20:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please rely on what the sources actually say.Dil e Muslim talk 07:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Posting to multiple user's talk pages

Hi Am Not New, please stop posting to multiple user's talk pages per WP:ADMINSHOP and WP:CANVASS. It is disruptive and may lead to a block. It is best just to let the SPI take its course, you won't be blocked unless administrators are sure you are breaching policy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

unblock request

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).

Am Not New (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i am connected to a private netcafe via a wifi Dil e Muslim talk 06:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Contrary to your statement below "there is not a single behavioural relation between child star and me", I have found numerous connections, enough on their own to convince me. Add the checkuser evidence to that, and the case is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2013 (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 was wondering that why i am being relating to a user child star now i realized mr admin i am connected to a private net cafe by a wifi.watch investigation there is not a single behavioural relation between child star and me.actually the behavioural relations there are between me and mosamu and shabiha which is proved wrong.i dont have any relation with that user. now you will ask me that why i did not told that there.dear admin i was confused then and was requesting other checkusers to check my relations. Now about proxy dear admin that i used.why? i am living in pakistan here youtube and many other anti islamic articles are banned.i am a religious editor so i used proxy.but you can check my log i only used proxy in only two or three log.except this all of my ip is dynamic and real.i did not used proxy for bad purpose.Dil e Muslim talk 06:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um... several CUs agreed that you were Child Star, even the ones you tried to get to prove your "innocence". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

dear lukeno i was trying because i was innocent and i was thinking that why am i being related to it.now i realized it is because my wifi connection with netcafe.and even the cu used the word "it, is Likely, if not very likely"Dil e Muslim talk 07:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two said likely and one said very likely. That, given with the behavioral evidence also mentioned is enough. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

mr mezzomezzo one said " it seems that Am Not New is very Likely to be related to Child Star Grown Up"

and second said "it, is Likely, if not very likely".third Rschen7754 was not a checkuser but was an admin and did not said anything about me.Dil e Muslim talk 13:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some IP asked me to check this. Am Not New, the "Likely, if not very likely" is referring to the technical evidence, which includes much more than just your IP address. But your block was also based on behavioral evidence, in that the topics you are editing and the way you write is very similar to CSGP. So I concur with the block. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qwyrxian child star contributations are not related to my contributation see contributation of child star and my contributation.and about language i don't agree with you.Dil e Muslim talk 14:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Am Not New, how many admins need to state that they agree with the block before you'll accept it? Carrying on like this is only likely to see your talk page access revoked. And I remember explicitly making the link between you and Child Star, even though I thought you and Msoamu were more closely related. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:36, 8 May 2013 (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).

Am Not New (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

please see my unblock request

Decline reason:

Per above - unanimous decision. Revoking talk page access. m.o.p 18:49, 8 May 2013 (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.

^ http://www.minhaj.org/english/tid/8718/A-Profile-of-Shaykh-ul-Islam-Dr-Muhammad-Tahir-ul-Qadri.html

[1] ttp://www.minhaj.org/english/tid/8718/A-Profile-of-Shaykh-ul-Islam-Dr-Muhammad-Tahir-ul-Qadri.html

[1]