User talk:LahoreKid

Welcome!

Hello, LahoreKid, 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 on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! S3000 ☎ 16:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Please document your reverts to the pages. Why are you adding sectarian material to pages. Ayub Khan was not shia. Misaq Rabab (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfotunately Pakistan has became haven from extremeist from many Muslim countries. The anti-Shia incidents only started during the Afghan war when many Arab countries provided aid, men and propaganda. The extremist organizations and their activities in Pakistan are funded by foreign agencies. The Pakistanis are not sectarian and we have common Muslim bond. The religion is Muslim and not Shia or Sunni. Misaq Rabab (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should remove all sectarian denomiantion from all Pakistani pages. Misaq Rabab (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent Racial edits

Hello! I want to inform you that you must read vandalism, to know better what it is. Secondly not to have faction of religion in the infobox is not my POV, it's something of common sense, infoboxes are not to be populated with the all the information, you just need to add what is asked. Third thing there are references of ZA Bhutto being a sunni muslim, so his faction of religion is disputed, I recommend you not to add it. --SMS ^Talk 18:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! let me add some reliable source.i.e The interview of Abida Hussain(who herself is shia) by Washingtom Post. --SMS ^Talk 19:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make your POV a line on stone! --SMS ^Talk 22:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are making your POV the final statement, I am trying to resolve this dispute but you are trying to make it an edit war. I again request you to have a look at the content and references I added and be neutral. And don't make personal statements in your edit summaries. --SMS ^Talk 15:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re Shia and Sunni sectarianism

Thanks for your message on my talkpage. To be truthful, I doubt if many European and Americans do know whether a Pakistani person is Shia or Sunni - even the more famous ones (I would guess that some are not aware that Pakistan is a Muslim state) - and all we can do is rely on sources. Unfortunately, both sides to the dispute are providing references and I think the majority of English speaking editors are unable to determine which is the more accurate. In this way this is a content dispute; one side is right and the other wrong, but most en-WP editors don't know which! That is why I suggest going to the Pakistan WikiProject, where hopefully there are enough neutral editors who can then advise us admins who is putting in the wrong information which we can act upon. This is not a matter in which admins are going to act if there is any possibility of getting things wrong. I hope this explains my comments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to protect the articles, because this is not simple vandalism. I am also disappointed that you should consider someone non neutral because they may be of a particular sect - it is possible to belong to a faith or culture and still be open to promoting the truth even where it does not serve your own belief system - and it does reflect poorly upon yourself. Under the circumstances I am going to request further outside input on the Admin Noticeboard you placed the original notice; hopefully someone in possession with the facts can say what is correct, and we can take it from there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow this discussion here. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 23:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My aim at the WP Pakistan debate is not to humiliate anyone. I just need the sectarianism to go away and make the articles related to Pakistan an edit war-free zone. Hope you understand that. I did not start this debate. The only reason this debate is there is for future references and that people should be more liberal than sectarian, at least, while they are on Wikipedia. Hope you understand. By the way, I replied on the debate. Please follow-up. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 22:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bhutto and Jinnah

Sorry! I couldn't get, what do you mean by your recent message at my talk page? --SMS ^Talk 04:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jinnah and vandalism

I knew he was born into an Ismaili family - but this is the first I've heard of him being a twelver, dont accuse me of vandalism when my edits clearly are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.201.29 (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your participation is required in this debate regarding your recent edits. I am talking with the admins about the edit wars you have been a part of. Please have you say as it is really important that we know what you are thinking. Thanks. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 18:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never lied; please read again. To be honest, I wasn't aware of the edits on Yousaf Raza Gillani and Asif Ali Zardari but I knew of the other pages which I mentioned in the debate. My evaluations were resulted from the articles that I mentioned. Don't obscure the facts, LahoreKid. But now that you have mentioned, I will keep an eye on those as well. And yes, there is no need to be aggressive about this. The whole purpose of the debate is to come to a certain result not to beat around the bush. While I see that the original edits were made by 81.149.22.123 as you state, I never checked the articles you mentioned not being aware of it.

Even when Smsarmad reverted them in good faith to keep it neutral, why would you not go with a general, liberal attitude. If Smsarmad ever changed them, it was for the purpose of bringing neutrality to the articles. Here, I just state this one issue surrounding the sectarianism in Pakistani articles in general. French do not have your versions of sectarian animosities, either in their country or on the articles on Wikipedia related to them. I think, if it's about a Pakistani article, we should all keep that sectarian piece of mind at home. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 01:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, I am just managing the debate on WP Pakistan. I write what I am aware of. Don't get angered by it. I appreciate whatever you are doing, but I would say you are a bit too aggressive there. I sympathise your cause and I would love to have your thoughts draft proper policies for the same in the future. I have listed some rules that birthed of the ramifications of the debate. Please support or oppose them with comments. If you shape these policies, your future edits may be justified and please do not hold fingers up later on a particular user. Another thing that I would appreciate is for you to link all the debates and talks that you had regarding this matter in your next post on WP Pakistan. Please, trust me, everything is already summing up pretty good and would shape up decently if you participated. Cheers. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 03:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see on the talk page that your opposition is frail. I am giving the voting process some more time for you to gather support. Please consider talking to other pro-Shi'ite friends to oppose the policies put forth. I am in the process of looking for more users who have sentiments like yours and I will persuade them to vote as well. Nice going. Thanks! Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 20:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't threaten me

Who are you to threaten me with a block? Pull your head in ... WWGB (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on WT:PAK. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please assume good faith and Be CIVIL! SMS ^Talk 15:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are required to read what is written in the above Notice or any further directed link. --SMS ^Talk 16:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent comments on sectarianism

I feel that it is important for me to tell you that you were on the right (to some extent not all) while discussing issues related to sectarianism where your changes were supported by citations. I hereby invite you to join in a further discussion here where I propose a committee to look into legit material references that aren't available to other people. Using this committee's guidance you can limit your edits to validity and remove disputable content.

While I would really like your help in helping us understand your needs which everyone is adhering to at the moment, I would like you to be civil while making your remarks as they are better taken when presented in a civil manner. People will listen if you make them listen in a good tone and manner. Opposition on the votes is a bit frail and I'd like to remind you to get some support as well. Cheers. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 16:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 3RR report.

1) It's stale. 2) It's not vandalism; it's clearly a content dispute. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 19:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marjas

Bro, Assalam o alaikum! I have noted that you have edited the page List of Marjas as per your point of view without discussion with the previous authors/editors of the article, so please don't go too fast. I want to discuss two issues regarding this article:

Deletion of "self-proclaimed marjas"

Don't delete the marjas, which you think are "self-proclaimed marjas" because none among us is to decide who is self-proclaimed and who is not. To adopt Neutral Point of View, initially it was decided that

All Marjas who published a resalah, irrespective of the number of their followers, will be included in this list.

Please take a look at [1]. Then, I arranged the article into a sortable table format. If you think that certain individual was not added correctly, please discuss his deletion from list on the Discussion Page of the article. If you don't discuss such issues with other authors, it will turn into an edit-war

Ordering of Names: Alphabetical OR Influential

The names of the Marjas was ordered alphabetically, because there is no standard to prove superiority of one marja over another. Possible standards and their flaws are:

Adopt the list issued by Hawza Elmiye Qom, however it is not popular in Shia's outside Iran.
Arrange the marjas according to their age, but more age doesn't necessarily mean more learned.
Arrange the marjas according to seminaries, but one seminary is not more important than other.

So all authors stuck to alphabetical listing of the names of marjas. I am sorry to say that you re-ordered the list without mentioning your criterion, and placed your favourite ones at the top. I am startled that you placed Ayatollah Hussain FadlAllah at the top, while keeping influential ulema like Taghi Bahjat & Vahid Khorasani low on the list. Please don't do this, let the list be alphabetical.

Please don't don't discuss article-related issues on my talk page, discuss all related issues on the Discussion Page of the article. Wassalam NEDian (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Bro, I had made my best efforts to make the list alphabetical, but if there is still some flaw, you can always correct such flaws and help us improve the article. Just put the reason why you have edited the page, that would help others know the exact reason of your move. I have kept Muhammad Hussain Najafi in the list, and we will keep reverting vandalism by unknown IP's. NEDian (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You have violated the WP:3RR. Either you undo your own edit to Bilawal Bhutto Zardari or you will be blocked from editing. LahoreKid (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be unfamiliar to Wikipedia policies, so I will repeat them for you.

1. 3RR states that "an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period". If you check my edit history, you will see that I did NOT perform more than three edits within a 24-hour period. So, I have not "violated" this requirement.

2. You are not an admin so you have no power, and no right, to threaten anyone with being blocked.

If you want to contribute meaningfully to Wikikpedia, I suggest you spend more time reading up on the policies and guidelines. Oh, and lose your attitude too. Have a nice day! WWGB (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ali Jinnah

Looking at this further - you sought a 3rd opinion - yet seem to disagree with what was suggested by the arbiter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.201.24 (talk) 11:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments on User talk:Syed.Nedian: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. SMS ^Talk 06:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you have anything other to do than being Uncivil to other editors. --SMS ^Talk 16:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marja

Hi LahoreKid,

Regarding Jawadi Amol, I haven't heard of him being marja either. Mesbah-Yazdi, I don't know. In any case, this is not something to be resolved through my opinion, your opinion or anybody else's opinion. We need published reliable sources for such statements anyways. We can then say whatever those sources say. None of these should be a pretext for uncivil language by any editor.

--Be happy!! (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Fadlallah11.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Fadlallah11.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]