User talk:Secretive lobbyist

March 2021

Hello, I'm M.Bitton. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Tariq ibn Ziyad, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bitton, I was unable to cite the source as it was a blogspot website, but however, it is authentic as a reference to Muhammad Iqbal’s works. here it is : http://iqbalurdu.blogspot.com/2011/04/bal-e-jibril-128-tariq-ki-dua.html.

January 2022

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Qadiani, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 13:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Qadiani, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not introduce garbled / unintelligible phrasing, and do not blank sourced content. bonadea contributions talk 14:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't claim that edits that change the wording and content significally are "minor" as you did here. --bonadea contributions talk 14:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Qadiani. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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. Favonian (talk) 14:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Users are failing to engage with me on the User talk page of the Qadiani topic. What should I do if they do not respond to me, but remove a correctly cited fact which I have posted to the Wikipedia page? Kindly guide me, best --Secretive lobbyist (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page guidelines

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved. In the future you can use the "New section" link in the top right. For more details see the talk page guidelines. Also remember to sign your talk page comments with 4 tildes (~~~~) or click the "Sign your posts on talk pages" button. Woodroar (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

I noticed that you've started using a custom signature which doesn't include your username. See WP:CUSTOMSIG/P for guidelines on custom signatures. Woodroar (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Orange Mike | Talk 16:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Orange Mike, it is very unfortunate you are trying to censor me as an admin. It is clear that there is no reason to have reverted my edits, as they were factual. --Secretive lobbyist (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Qadiani

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Qadiani, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it 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. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Woodroar (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had referenced, from a Qadiani website, the tombstone of Mirza , I cannot see what else shall I do. Take each Wikipedia visitor to Qadian and show him with his eyes, and then take him to a doctor to prove that his eyes work, and then take that doctor to his alma matter to know if he passed his exams to diagnose the witness, and then go on to check the universities accreditors? Nonsense, this is clearly vendetta. --Secretive lobbyist (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You used a primary source—the text from a tombstone—to support a claim that alhakam.org doesn't actually make. alhakam.org doesn't say that the term isn't used as a pejorative. In fact, it doesn't say anything about pejoratives at all. So yes, that's what we call original research.

I had never heard of "Qadiani" until today, but after reading the article and some of its sources, it's clear that the term has evolved beyond a simple demonym. That's not uncommon. A "philistine" doesn't always mean someone from ancient Canaan. Our article List of ethnic slurs and epithets by ethnicity includes plenty of slurs based on demonyms and exonyms. (Of course, there are also positive versions. A "good Samaritan" doesn't always mean a nice member of an ethnoreligious group.) Ultimately, context matters, and we need reliable sources to provide that context. Our "job" at Wikipedia is to fairly summarize what reliable sources say about subjects, not add our own interpretations. Woodroar (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I want to refer to something that exists physically i.e. if I want to say that the St. Paul’s Cathedral has white dome, what should I do? I will goto the Anglican Church’s website, and refer that picture as citation. That is what I did : I never claimed alhakam claimed anything about the demonym. Also, as mentioned before, I am not arguing that it has not evolved, but I am just mentioning a fact that the term Qadiani was used by the followers of Mirza on his tombstone. They may remove it if they think it is derogatory. Nevertheless, Wikipedia and its administrators have disappointed me in the rampant censorship which I have endured today. Sometimes accused of using weak English, “garbled text”, not using my signature, and everything that is away from the topic of discussion. The user bonadea has evidently tricked the administration to hide particular facts (i.e. the tombstone fact) and rather push a narrative which suits his agenda of showing the victimisation of the Qadiani. It is very relevant to the debate that the term is used on the tombstone. I do concede there has been a Semantic change of the Qadiani term, but I was just mentioning it as a token of history and context. Nevertheless, thoroughly disappointed. --Secretive lobbyist (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what you need to understand: our core content polices determine what gets mentioned on Wikipedia—and how we write about it. That photo of St. Paul's Cathedral is irrelevant because it doesn't matter if you or I think a white dome is noteworthy. That dome is unimportant here, on Wikipedia unless reliable, independent sources consider it worthy of coverage. Sure, there are some cases where it may be appropriate to use a fact from the Anglican Church's website, as outlined at WP:ABOUTSELF, but the Anglican Church has an inherent conflict of interest when it comes to what is and isn't interesting about their buildings. Now if The Guardian ran a story about St. Paul's Cathedral and specifically mentioned the white dome, then it might be appropriate to mention in an article. Woodroar (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the reason that the tombstone’s picture I shared was irrelevant, the earlier warning messages I would have received should and would have mentioned that, and I would have clarified that. But no, bondea used petty ad hominem such as "poor English” to hide the reality. I am an academic myself, and I would have loved to clarify any misunderstanding, and am open to still negotiate, but the administrators are evidently biased against my argument. Other than the weak argument you make about the tombstone being irrelevant, another interesting point you make is that you would not take the picture of St. Paul’s cathedral from the website itself (which is first person source), but you would rather take it from an article of the Guardian? Also, this is quite the opposite case : I am not using the first person to argue in favour of the first person , I am rather using the first person primary source to argue something which rather might be construed as against the primary source itself as a controversy (about the first person). Your trickery at changing the narrative and giving a misfitting example is very interesting, but you will not and cannot outsmart me. You’re making a poor case for your clandestine censorship. Also, why was bondea not banned, but I was banned? They too were engaging in the “edit war”. In any case, what can be done is that you uncensor me, and I use a picture of the same tomb from a source which you find befitting. Ofcourse, you cannot change what is written on the tomb. Wayback machine always will keep records. So you can use the equivalent of the “guardian” for this case, and mention the tombstone indeed refers to Mirza as “Qadiani”. --Secretive lobbyist (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why it is irrelevant is discussed and explained in some detail at Talk:Qadiani. I never claimed alhakam claimed anything about the demonym. Also, as mentioned before, I am not arguing that it has not evolved, but I am just mentioning a fact that the term Qadiani was used by the followers of Mirza on his tombstone. They may remove it if they think it is derogatory. There is a contradiction here. On the one hand, you say that there is no claim about the demonym. In other words, the fact that his tombstone mentions where he was born has no relevance for the fact that "Qaidani" is a slur. Then you say that his followers could change the inscription on the tombstone if they thought the demonym was derogatory. But since you have already pointed out the fact that there is no claim that the demonym is derogatory, it makes no sense to suggest that at all. And once again, the fact that the person was born in Qaidan is already in the article. Literally the only information the tombstone provides is that he was from Qadian.

It is not an ad hominem attack to point out the very obvious fact that you kept restoring text in almost unintelligible English, e.g. here. (It is sometimes difficult when an edit has multiple problems to point them all out – in addition to the language issues there were also issues with whitewashing, original research, and adding misleading claims.)

I was not blocked, because I did not violate WP:3RR. Information about edit warring is prominently displayed on this user talk page. You will be able to present your arguments on the article talk page, but if you keep levelling personal attacks such as the ones you fling at Woodroar and myself in your post, you might be blocked from there as well. --bonadea contributions talk 21:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase, as you clearly have English comprehension issues ; I said that if Qadiani find the demonym Qadiani as pejorative, they can wipe the demonym from Mirza’s tomb. Also, you are hiding the context in what I said “...no claim about the demonym” ; I was referring to the Hakam website. I was merely using the Hakam website as an authentic source of Mirza’s tomb, but it seems Woodroar wants me to use a non-primary source instead for some odd reason, no problem works for me. Therefore, absolutely no contradiction, you are very cleverly trying to portray that the tombstone merely puts forth that Mirza was born in Qadian, but I will not let you go with that intentional mischaracterisation. I am again for the fourth time reiterating ; the tomb stone in Urdu uses the word “Qadiani” as a demonym. It merely just does not say he is from Qadian. Therefore, it indeed is relevant, and adds to the greater historical context of the origins of the word “Qadiani” as evidence of its earlier legitimate usage which you are trying very hard to censor. Also, here is an image from Wikicommons (which you will probably now delete) of (your) Mirza’s tombstone, which uses the demonym “Qadiani” (as a slur?) [Tombstone]. Is this sufficiently authentic for you, Woodroar? --Secretive lobbyist (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, if you have a source that supports a claim that the demonym is seen as pejorative, present it on the article talk page. As you know, the word has two separate uses/connotations: as a demonym and as a slur.

And stop attacking your fellow editors.--bonadea contributions talk 21:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not here to prove that the demonym is pejorative or not, I am here to give a historical context of its origins, which I have presented at many occasions but it falls on deaf ears.

And stop censoring your fellow editors ! --Secretive lobbyist (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

Due to edit warring and disruptive editing against consensus, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing Qadiani. You can try to build consensus for any changes at Talk: Qadiani. Please read the Guide to appealing blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship at its finest. Why was bondea not banned, but I was banned? They too were engaging in the “edit war”. Ahh, I see, you don’t want you little dirty secret to let lose. I will build consensus on this topic, as many would definitely agree with me. --Secretive lobbyist (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not censorship and you are not banned. Rather, you are blocked from editing one specific page at this time because of your misconduct on that specific page. If you were banned, you would not be able to edit anywhere. As for Bonadea, that editor reverted you three times, which is the maximum allowed, and two other editors reverted you one time each. Those editors were complying with Wikipedia's policies and guulidelines, and you were violating them. It's that simple. Cullen328 (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly uncensor me, I guarantee I will comply with the Wikipedia rules (which I have high regard for, but unfortunately are being misused to censor me). I will keep my discussion in the talk, and then motion to consensus about my argument. There was already consensus that the Barelvi and Deobandi sects are also referred to demonyms which are not slurs (to explain a historical context of using demonyms as defining identity), but upon making the change which was agreed by consensus in the User Talk of the Qadiani page, I was then censored by the admin. --Secretive lobbyist (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As explained above, you are not censored, but you are obligated to follow Wikipedia's policies and guudelines. Which talk page consensus are you referring to? Cullen328 (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are not being threatened, you are being told that actions have consequences

And although you may revert most posts to your talk page, of course they are still there and can be read by others. Doug Weller talk 21:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make one thing clear: you are allowed to use your talk page to appeal this block. Any other use will only result in that privilege being revoked. Drmies (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why have you now blocked me? What is my current violation for this new censorship? Tell me what you want me to promise you, and I shall do that. --Secretive lobbyist (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read the Guide to appealing blocks, and follow those instructions to the letter. Cullen328 (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...uhh.. I can’t be more bothered. I have many other accounts. I have better things to do that sit all day and lobby unpaid for Qadiani’s sensitive feelings like you people. Good luck with your censorship project ! --Secretive lobbyist (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:DanielYaelHalevi is blocked. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting us know, that you have socks. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Favonian (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]