User talk:Suenahrme

Why are you posting bahai info

Why are you adding Bahai information under the the Twelver Shia Islam Criticism? Please discuss your intention in the talk page. Xareen (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Suenahrme, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 00:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sunni view of the Sahaba

The article had been tagged for 2 years as not meeting our requirement that content be supported by citations to reliable sources. I have converted the article to a basic stub to remove the original commentary.

Please feel free to build the content of the article by citing reliable sources. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 00:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The orange barred flags or tags at the top of the page that say "This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2008)" Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 00:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be based on what third party scholars say about the subject, not what Wikipedia editors interpreting the Qu'ran say it means. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 00:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sunni scholar work published by standard reputable presses is allowed, but not "fringe" work that is effectively self published by the believer. The content in the article should be very clear about where the information is coming from - whether content is an outside scholarly analysis, or whether content is the standard view that has been long held by mainstream Sunni religious leaders, etc. Writing about religious topics for Wikipedia can be a difficult tightrope to walk. You can check out the "Good article" and "Feature article" sections to find high quality articles about religious topics that you can use as a model. You can start by working on a "draft" in your userspace User:Suenahrme/Sunni view of the Sahaba and ask for feed back from Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion and Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam to get you headed in the right direction. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 13:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

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.. The thread is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Suenahrme - Humaliwalay (talk) 11:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2010_November_30

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:Copyright_problems/2010_November_30. 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.--Korruski^Talk 11:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If only you knew my frustration korruski but yes I will from now on only strictly criticize the contributions and not contributors. I will leavfe the judges tyo criticize the contributors. Thanks.Suenahrme (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move Criticism of Twelver Shi'ism to Criticism of Shi'a Islam

Greetings, asking for your opinion since you appear to support improving the article. Is Criticism of Twelver Shi'ism necessarily focused specifically on the Twelver, or do you think that we can move it to Criticism of Shi'a Islam? If you have an opinion, please share it on the article's Discussion (Talk:Criticism_of_Twelver_Shi'ism)page rather than replying here. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Twelver Shi'ism

I do not know enough about the Criticism of Occultation to judge whether or not it should stay. Clearly, you and Xareen have opposite views, but you both should try to be neutral. Find reliable sources that criticize the Occultation so that you have a proper reason to have that section, or, if you cannot find any reliable sources, then leave it out. BTW, as I already suggested to Xareen, you should contact an admin if you cannot work it out on the talk page. If you both keep reverting each other over and over, then you both might be blocked, regardless of who is "right" or "wrong." Hope that helps !! Unflavoured (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I am hoping that the other editors will now sit down and talk instead of continuously reverting, now that the article is blocked. Probably no need to request formal arbitration, since there are only a very few editors involved, and the issue, frankly, is not a huge one. Just a matter of people trying to push a POV, probably in good faith too ( i.e no malice intended ) Unflavoured (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

Your recent editing history at Criticism of Twelver Shi'ism shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. As promised on talk page. I hope I won't have to return here. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salaam Alaik

Hi dear Suenahrme. I didn't see you today continuing discussion. If I have told you somethin unintentionally, I apologize and hope to see you there.--Aliwiki (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please fill out the section I have provided for your reasons, avoid going in details. thanks.--Aliwiki (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at User talk:Kazemita1, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Nyttend (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Criticism of Twelver Shi'ism

You've been reported for edit warring at WP:AN3#User:Suenahrme reported by User:Kazemita1 (Result: ). If you will agree to make no more reverts on this article until consensus is reached on the talk page, you may be able to avoid sanctions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes and i also expect kazenita not to revert his edit intil consensys is reached.Suenahrme (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Suenahrme reported by User:Kazemita1 (Result: 24h). I would not have blocked if you had made an unqualified acceptance of my offer above. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:51, 3 April 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).

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

Request reason:

Edjohnston has blocked me but i believe for numerous incorrect reasons. 1. He says i reject misyar being temporary saying i *personally knows* that misyar is permanent. Well sir i never said i the readon is only because i personally know this. If you had consulted me rather than just assume i would have told you i know this because that is what the misyar wiki article says itself not me. 2. He seems to think i am not discussing the revert issue but as my edits clearly show i am trying on numerous pages to clarify the differences. Ie. i am not reverting just for the sake of it. I have my readons and i have made them very clear and am still awaiting responses to them which i have not got yet. 3. He accuses me of "no awareness that he needs reliable sources". I have made it clear about my views on this on RSN yet no body is bothering to yet respond to them. Thats not my fault that responses ate not forthcoming yet. 4. He claims he blicked me but "would not have blocked if you made an unqualified acceptance of my offer above". But on the rdit warring noticeboard he gives every other reason except this for blocking me. So i am confused. Did he only block me because i didnt obey him fully as he states or is it all those other reasons? i think these all hint to a block that was conducted in haste and misjudgement. To conclude, i am reverting because i feel i have legitimate questions that have yet to be answered and a block vefore they get answered seems hasty and unfair. I think i should be unblocked, have my questions answered which i feel i have a rught to ask then we can carry on from there.Suenahrme (talk) 04:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring; the rest of your argument is irrelevant. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:54, 3 April 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

how is the rest of my argument irrelevant as jpgordon claim when i am addressing the very issues that got me blocked in the 1st place? I would appreciate actual responses that seek to address my concerns rather than being simply brushed aside with short statements that lack real detail. I dont understand why i alone am being blocked while kazemita kept teverting his edits despite ongoing duscussions.Suenahrme (talk) 05:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)But cant anyone see i am not edit warring just for the sake of it or for no reason? I have legitimate converns and reasons for my actions that have not been addressed yet. I dont see why kazemita can keep reverting his edit despite my unresolved reasoning yet i get blocked for my reverts. I think a block should only have occurred after the whole differences were comprehensively resolved and questions are answreed.Suenahrme (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were blocked because you were edit-warring. You are free to raise your concerns on the article's talk page, and collaborate/discuss issues with other editors - but, as you don't seem to even understand why you were blocked, I'll have to decline this request. Also, for future notice, please do not create a new unblock request if you just want to ask a question. m.o.p 05:56, 3 April 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.

(regarding your latest edit)

The main issue here - you say, "i am not edit warring just for the sake of it or for no reason". I suggest you read over this page if you haven't already. Edit warring, whether you have an amazing reason or not, is unacceptable almost universally. The validity of your argument is not what you are being blocked for, the edit warring is. m.o.p 15:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Child Imam quote

You are putting out of context quote as of it is opinion of the writer when he is just mentioning it from some unreferenced source. The writer a balant lier who is proclaimed to be expert on Islam seems to be unaware of even Quranic verses about Prophet Isa a.s. i.e. verses 19:30-33 in the chapter of Mary in the Quran:

He said: "I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet;
And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live;
(He) hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable;
So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)!"
— Quran, sura 19 Maryam, ayat 30-33^[1]^[2]

So, as per Quran a new-born can be a Prophet but as per so-called muslim scholar, child can't be Imam. Hatred of Ahl-e-Bayt a.s. and their Shia have made the nasibis/wahabis/salafis so blind that they are ready to negate Quran & Rasool s.a.w.a. so that they can criticise Ahl-e-Bayt a.s. and their Shia.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 06:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^ Cite error: The named reference EoI-Isa was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Quran 19:30–33

[EoI-Isa-1] Cite error: The named reference EoI-Isa was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[2] Quran 19:30–33

[1]

[2]