Talk:Imam Mehdi Gohar Shahi

Disambiguation page or redirect?
This aricle belongs to gohar shahi and it should not be allowed to any 3rd party to have the article with same name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.25.165 (talk • contribs)


 * There is no ownership of articles, if there is a reasonable expectation of confusion, as there appears to be, the disambig page should stay. Q  T C 07:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please understand that the subject of this page refers to more than one article in Wikipedia. Imam Mehdi Gohar Shahi is a title given to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, however this title is seems to be used mostly by those at Messiah Foundation International, which is why I have linked this page to both articles. Please keep in mind that no pages on Wikipedia "belong" to anybody- rather, they contain informative information about a subject. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 07:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC))
 * you need to understand that when it is a title of gohar shahi, it belongs to gohar shahi only, isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.1.64 (talk) 08:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this is time to take decision, the administration of wikipedia should direct this page to gohar shahi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.27.188 (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Listen Mr, it's not really going to help anybody here if you keep changing IP addresses and posting comments that stand in approval of what you say. I agree with what you say, the title 'Imam Mehdi' is often referred to Gohar Shahi, but I think directing this page to Shahi's page won't do justice, and the page should mention what is related to this rank, for example, the organisation that claims Shahi to behold this rank and then Shahi himself. Eventually, the page does actually direct towards Shahi anyway, so I don't understand what the fuss is about, there's a constant edit-war. Please, think it over and act constructively.Nasiryounus (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you need to understand that this page belongs to HH Gohar Shahi and it should be re-directed to that purpose only. HH Gohar Shahi never claim to be Imam Mehdi or prophet, this is not going to benifit you any way, the IP addresses I am not aware of that.--Falconkhe (talk) 08:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As OverlordQ said, since there is a reasonable expectation of confusion relating to this title, the page as a disambiguation should stay so that people can easily navigate to the relevant article. The page doesn't belong to anyone, it just helps people find what they are looking for. And, as nasiryounus mentioned, the disambig page does include a link to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi. So what is the actual problem? Plus, what do you mean by "the IP addresses I am not aware of that"? Anyway, I personally think its reasonable and logical to just keep the disambiguation page. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC))
 * I agree to what Omirocksthisworld has said. It brings total justice to the issue. Nasiryounus | Talk  00:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.--Falconkhe (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is getting ridiculous. Honestly, what sort of "hidden agenda" could there be with a disambiguation page? Please speak sensibly, and read Five Pillars to learn about "assuming good faith with other Wikipedians". ( Omi  ☺  18:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC))
 * I think you seriousely need to read Five Pillars, wikipedia is not a platform to be used to preach your self-made teachings and by using this sort of names you are preaching your dogmas.--Falconkhe (talk) 11:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? Please be civil. What do you mean "self-made teachings"? What I'm talking about is reading the Wikipedia pillar about assuming good faith with editors instead of being accusatory. The aim here is to work collaboratively to ensure the best possible coverage. If you wish for your views to be heard then you should at least try to present them in way where they can be understood. It doesn't help when you accuse your fellow editors of having "hidden agendas" and "self-made teachings". -Omi( ☺ ) 23:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Falconkhe, I've asked you repeatedly, every single day, to discuss the reason for edit on the discussion board, before you make an edit. It would make more sense why you'd make a particular edit and I'd understand why you had done it, hence, I wouldn't revert it. Now please, do not edit before you've discussed why you want to make the edit. Thanks, very much. --ヅ Nasir Younus  ☆ 21:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No need to create disambiguation for this page as this is title of gohar shahi. This would be something else, if you want your publicize your organization in the name of disambiguation.--Falconkhe (talk) 07:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Falconkhe, I have mentioned my concerns to this exact comment on Talk: RAGS International. I suggest we maintain an objective perspective and try to understand that linking an article in a disambiguation page does nothing to "advertise" anyway. Plus Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an ad centre. -Omi( ☺ ) 07:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to understand that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an ad centre.--Falconkhe (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've only one thing to say. Ridiculous Behaviour, Falconkhe!-- N Y7  ☆ 21:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How weird! Different IPs but similar remark and action every single time!

08:31, 5 February 2010 119.160.18.209 (talk) (36 bytes) (Don't change the page, please talk first) (undo)04:58, 6 February 2010 Falconkhe (talk | contribs) (36 bytes) (Don't change page.) (undo) Falconkhe, listen, I've nothing against you personally, but this is ridiculous. You've got to come to terms now. This can't go on. You're edit-waring on everything and anything possible on Wikipedia, that's just ridiculous, not to add, that you're using different IP addresses each time!-- N Y7  ☆ 19:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Supporting the Redirect
As a neutral editor on the MFI issue, I'm not seeing any reason for a Disambig page, as both links are about the same person. It's not like there's a separate Gohar Shahi just for MFI, it's the same guy, though apparently perceived differently. Therefore, I support the use of this page as a Redirect rather than a Disambig. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that does makes sense. I agree as well. Omi( ☺ ) 06:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Its YOU who is doing the edit wars, I am simply stopping you to use the name of gohar shahi and this is the only reason this page should not be disambiguation. Hope all is clear now and you will not further offend and use the name and picture of HH Gohar Shahi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconkhe (talk • contribs) 07:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you need to relax and let this be resolved by neutral editors. You are clearly fighting this Disambig due to personal biases and not out of a desire to keep Wikipedia running smoothly.  It is inappropriate to talk of "protecting" someone's name, and to keep referring to "His Holiness".  Please recuse yourself from the argument, and let neutral editors (who happen to agree with you, but for WP-appropriate reasons) work the Redirect. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but my point is, why does Falconkhe still want to Redirect this page which claims that Shahi is the 'Imam Mehdi' when he, (if he does actually belong to the ASI) opposes this view? http://rariazgoharshahi.blogspot.com/2008/11/anjuman-sarfroshan-islam-opposes-mfi.html -- N Y7  ☆ 01:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'd just like to make a point. According to Falconkhe, he tends to see this page as a Redirect to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, but this article (link below) clearly states that ASI (who Falconkhe belongs to) opposes MFI, which shows why Falconkhe too opposes the MFI, it all makes sense now :P.
 * Falconkhe's obvious CoI notwithstanding, the page is still appropriate as a redirect rather than disambig. As a parallel, Jesus Christ redirects to Jesus:  it doesn't redirect to a disambig between Jesus and Christianity ("which claims Jesus is the Christ").  Regardless of how Gohar is viewed by group A or B, he's only one person, and there's no reason to redirect to MFI.  Falconkhe is, if only coincidentally, correct in this matter. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I totally agree the decision, however, my point was another. But I agree with the decision.-- N Y7  ☆ 06:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)