User talk:Asikhi

Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi
Can I assume that you are the editor who has, using various IP addresses, continually reverted the Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi page? If so, please continue to log in so that a realistic discussion can occur--it is quite impossible to initiate and carry on any sort of discussion with ever-changing IP addresses.

On to the article itself...

This version of the article, your preferred version, is, plainly, a pile of propaganda with no proper sourcing. If I were to "highlight the points you think are not properly sourced" as you suggest, the vast majority of the article would be littered with fact tags. I won't do that because it's a lost cause and because that's decidedly not it's supposed to work: on Wikipedia, if you want to make a claim in an article, you have to source that claim. It's not the other way around; nobody should write whatever they want and leave the cleaning up of the mess to others.

(And please think about this clearly, too. I have nothing to gain or lose from the promotion of this Shahi fellow, but there are clearly others out there that would choose to soil his reputation in any way possible as well, right? The efforts of editors like me to reign in those that follow Shahi will be just as strong on these type of editors, too. I'm an ally, not an adversary.)

There are sections of the version to which you keep reverting that would probably be okay to re-add, but a wholesale revert is causing more problems than it's solving. Please see the article now--I have created in-line citations for every claim in the biography section. Proper future additions would follow a similar scheme: if you are to add a potentially controversial claim, please include a citation. &mdash; Scientizzle 18:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

His Holiness Sayyedna Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi
First of all let me tell you that His Holiness Sayyedna Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi is an internationally renowned personality. Not only Muslims a number of people from other faiths too are the follower of His Holiness.

I would like to tell you that I want this article to be the best on Wiki but whatever information is provided is declined or replaced by wiki admin with no good reasons. You can not write an article with a reference of each single word. You should understand that in Pakistan religious bigots are trying their best to eliminate us. No coverage of electronic or print media is allowed to us. Newspapers & media give coverage to us only when they want to defame or disgrace us. Moreover, people like Mehdi Foundation (www.goharshahi.com), who doesn’t belong to His Holiness Sayyedna Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi but they pretend to be just as a conspiracy to defame His Holiness and they present self-made version of the teachings of His Holiness Sayyedna Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, which is blasphemous and provoke people against His Holiness.

In present situation it is very difficult to provide you references from other sources as all the information provided can be verified from www.goharshahi.net, which is an official website of International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam and represent the Interpreter of Kotri Sharif (International Head Quarters of ASI).

Further, His Holiness Sayyedna Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi and International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam are two different things; I want you to keep them separate and don’t merge together. If you ask about my preferred version of This Pagethen this is my Preferred Versionof this page.

I need you help and support in this regard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asikhi (talk • contribs)


 * I strongly disagree with your statement that "You can not write an article with a reference of each single word." In fact, it is Wikipedia policy that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable source" and that the "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material".
 * I agree that in-line citations for every sentence is a bit clumsy looking, but I did it to make my point clear: every statement in the current version of the article (that I essentially wrote) is attributable to an external source as expected by the Wikipedia community.
 * Regarding Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam & Shahi, I'm aware that they're two separate concepts. It was painfully obvious, however, that the Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam article did not have any external coverage to meet the notability guidelines. Therefore, in standard Wikipedia practice, I merged the two articles together--the spiritual movement founded by Shahi is a reasonable portion of the Shahi article and the strength of a single article on the topic is better than two separate, weaker articles. Please review Notability (organizations and companies) to learn more...
 * The reason that neither goharshahi.net or goharshahi.com is listed on the page is that there is a history of edit warring over the "right" homepage. As far as I know, neither group has any superior claim to being the "right" source. A compromise that I attempted, to include both sets of homepages, did not work, so, to protect the article, I removed all of them. Wikipedia isn't a battleground for religious disagreements...so I figured that using only sources completely separate from these sites was necessary for a balanced article.
 * That brings me to my last, and arguably most important, point: it is Wikipedia policy to present every article in a neutral point of view. This is the primary reason why your preferred version of the article is plainly inappropriate. I realize you have an apparent strong devotion to Shahi & his teachings, but surely you can understand that by limiting your ability to write glowing prose that paints him in a light of perfection it will likewise limit any of his detractors from writing damning statements... &mdash; Scientizzle 16:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to write this article according to your policies, I hope you will help me. --Asikhi 12:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

January 31 reply...
From my talk page:"As discussed earlier regarding our article, I told you earlir that wwww.goharshahi.net is the only official website of His Holiness Sayyedna Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi and International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam is the only representative of His Holiness Sayyedna Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi. I have also told you that I am the an official of International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam.

However, you seem reluctant to accept this as some miscreants were continuously interrupting my article editing the websites and other details. That’s why you didn’t allow me to use content from the our official website wwww.goharshahi.net.

I didn’t write anything is my article as promised, I was searching online to prove that wwww.goharshahi.com & Mehdi Foundation International doesn’t belong to His Holiness, I am pleased to inform you that now I have got an evidence. You can check yourself, its an article published in India.

Now, I would appreciate, if you kindly let me make this article appropriate as I want to add complete details of His Holiness Sayyedna Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi from His Birth till his occultation.

Moreover, I would also request you to kindly let me make a separate article for International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam, as I want the article of His Holiness should be focused on his personality, work and achievements. I promise you that I will pay full attention to these articles and in a very short span of time, complete them.

Your help & support is request. --Asikhi (talk) 07:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)"

Just to make a few things clear, in case they aren't...
 * 1) Wikipedia is not a place to promote your religion, it is an encyclopedia
 * 2) Those with a demonstrable conflict-of-interest are "strongly discouraged" from editing in a manner that "appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests"
 * 3) Wikipedia policies require verifiable claims (from reliable sources) to be presented in a manner that is neutral and devoid of original research.
 * 4) Statements such as "regarding our article" & "interrupting my article" suggest that you have some sort of ownership over the content. You don't. Read this:
 * {| style="border:black solid 1px" width="90%"


 * style="background-color:#c8ffc8" | Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, your company, or your pet idea, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, and no right to delete it outside our normal channels. Content is not deleted just because somebody doesn't like it. Any editor may add material to or remove material from the article within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually. More than one user has created an article only to find himself presented in a poor light long-term by other editors.

In addition, if your article is found not to be worthy of inclusion in the first place, it will be deleted, as per our deletion policies, and if you edit war to try and obtain a version of your choosing you may have your editing access removed, perhaps permanently.

Therefore, don't create promotional or other articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about. 
 * }

If you can correct any factual errors (citing proper sources), please be my guest. However, many prior editors have attempted to create a religious propaganda tract out of the Shahi article and I will readily address attempts to whitewash the article, and will work to continue the existence of an article that fully complies with Wikipedia policies.

Furthermore, the current version of Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi is quite policy-compliant and "appropriate", though it could use improvements on the Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam section. I do not believe that section should be moved to another page, as it is not clear that it is notable enough on its own. Nothing need be done about the MFI, in regard to this article, as it's neither mentioned nor cited. Citing your own website should be done with great care and with full knowledge of Wikipedia policies. I am skeptical that it can be used well: it's long on religious proclamations and short on encyclopedic fact; it's also a primary source, which means one can only use it to "make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source...and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source." Additionally, the tone of the article should maintain an encyclopedic level. &mdash; Scientizzle 21:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

February 1st reply...
I found thousands of articles of different people stating their personal websites; then why I can’t refer the website of His Holiness Sayyedna Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi? The reason why I am insisting is that I want this article to carry all necessary information about His Holiness Sayyedna Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi because our website is the main source of information on it.

I don’t want to propagate our religious faith or dogmas though wikipedia but I want to provide all the information just to enable readers of wiki to acquire full information of His Holiness Sayyedna Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi.

I don’t want to violate any policy and that’s the reason I repeatedly take your advise and instructions. What I want is to re-write this article, however, if you feel that I am not doing well, I will seek your guidance, still if you think that the new version of the article is poor in information or against the policies of WIKIPEDIA, you are most welcome to revert it back to its current version.

I hope you will encourage me and with your support I would be able to make this article as one of the feature article of Wikipedia.

Thanks & regards, --Asikhi (talk) 06:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said, feel free about making improvements. Be mindful of all of the policies & guidelines I've linked and there should not be any problems. I won't be shy about reverting any edit I find inappropriate, but I welcome article improvement. &mdash; Scientizzle 00:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed
Sultan Bahoo now redirects to Sultan Bahu. Feel free to edit the latter article. &mdash; Scientizzle 06:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright concerns...
Bari Imam contains a significant chunk of text exactly copied from this article and this site. This is absolutely unacceptable per Wikipedia's copyright policy. I have removed the offending sentences. Please rewrite any relevant information in your own words, citing the sources on which you base claims.

I have not check your other work, but if there is similar use of copyrighted material, the same treatment may apply. &mdash; Scientizzle 00:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

My reversion
I don't wish for my action to be taken personally. This edit, which tripled the size of the article, contained far too many uncited (or improperly cited) claims, peacock terms, and information that is clearly not appropriate in tone. This article must only contain verifiable claims from reliable sources (that should be external to your organization); it should not be used as a promotional tract.

As I stated in my edit summary, making incremental changes will be more amenable to improving the article, as it would allow more easily the selective evaluation of new or changed content. As it was, your huge change made it functionally impossible to keep some of the smaller adjustments that may have been alright because there were many large-scale alterations that were not.

Finally, your user page version contains all the same problems I listed above: poor citations, obvious promotional material, unclear notability of the Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam, and a serious neutrality problem. Keep working on it. &mdash; Scientizzle 06:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have not split the page for several reasons:
 * In order for the organization to meet the notability guidelines, it must have some non-trivial, citable external coverage from reliable sources. That has not yet been clearly demonstrated.
 * The version you've been working on is a giant promotional tract with little encyclopedic information. It's completely esoteric, it's littered with extensive external links that can only be meant to advertise the sites, and there's no in-line citation of controversial claims.
 * Finally, I see no need to separate the two--what is ASI without Shahi? There are several redirects to the current article. One of the "good reasons" to merge topics is "two or more...related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe."
 * That's why. &mdash; Scientizzle 16:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer review feedback
Hi, I noticed you have a request in at peer review which has not yet received any response besides the semi-automated script. Have you tried requesting a peer review from the volunteers list? Another idea is to review someone else's request (particularly one from the list of requests without responses), then ask that they look at your request. Hope these are helpful suggestions and help to get some feedback for your request soon, APR t 20:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Deen-e-Illahi
An editor has nominated Deen-e-Illahi, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Need your HELP
Hi Asikhi,

Thankyou very much for your wonderful translation effort.

I have helped you expand your requested article a few minutes ago. (I was not logged in at that time) --Jose77 (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Translation favor from en to tr
Hi, if you allow me time to open the article, I promise I'll do it and let you know when I do so. Happy editing, -- Bahar (Spring in Turkish)  &#9997;  14:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Meta
There was a report on six links in which you were involved adding, and which additions were deemed inappropriate. Please give your input at m:Talk:Spam_blacklist. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Imaan and Aqeeda on Imam Mehdi
I am surethat you people believe His Holiness to be your spiritual leader, then after passing for so many years and observing clear signs in moon, sun, stars and Hijre Aswad, you should have firm belief that His Holiness Gohar Shahi is the Imam Mehdi and HE just disappeared from your eyes and have not gone anywhere but present in this world. Can't you see that there is ALLAH ALLAH in your hearts just because of this great holy personality. I would request moderator of this page to remove information that would mislead new people to join this line. The Zakreen are not united due to which Sarkar Shah Sahib is avoiding to show all the signs, however, if all get united then there is no doubt that Sarkar will be among us as before. I have personally met His Holiness Gohar Shahi many times during last couple of months. Thanks Kamran 72.209.209.144 (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply
I appreciate you leaving this note on my talk page. As it stands, Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi is still not GA quality, as many of the problems indicated in the review have barely been addressed. I think my recent suite of edits drastically improved the English; I certainly removed a great deal inappropriately POV language. There is still a great need for good-quality citations (note how many tags have been placed), and I imagine you and your associates might be able to help considerably in that department. Bottom line: a good or great Wikipedia article neutrally reports what reliable sources have to say about a subject, and the beliefs of the article's authors should not be discernible. If you have a question about the appropriateness of a potential source, ask me or start a thread on the reliable sources noticeboard.

To continue the general improvement, I'd ask you to take the lead in explaining the importance of these Wikipedia policies and guidelines to other editors that frequent the page, such as &. If you can help get the other contributors to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines with greater fidelity, the article is bound to improve. &mdash; Scientizzle 16:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sufism
Salam alaykum brother, I am entrenched in Sufism myself, and this individual and his beliefs are controversial within Sufism, he is not accepted by everyone. I hope you understand. -- Enzuru 18:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if this individual is accepted by Sufis, putting something specific to him this article is a little ridiculous. Are we going to include the execution of Hallaj as well? Let's keep these specific things to his article. -- Enzuru 23:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I will not press the issue, brother. Can you help with this article: the Occultation since the term is used by his followers as well. Also update the link on his article. -- Enzuru 07:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

About translation "Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi" to Japanese
Hello. I have poor knowledge about Islam & Pakistan. I cannot satisfactorily help you perhaps. Sorry. --Law soma D C 05:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Sayyed Aamir Ali"
A page you created, Sayyed Aamir Ali, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how they are important or significant, and thus why they should be included in an encyclopedia. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and the guidelines for biographies in particular.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. tj9991 (talk | contribs) 08:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Mohammad Hamid Ansari.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Mohammad Hamid Ansari.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sayyed Aamir Ali
I have nominated Sayyed Aamir Ali, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Sayyed Aamir Ali. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. seicer &#x007C; talk  &#x007C; contribs  13:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoops
Thanks for catching that bit I accidentally reverted. Peter Deer (talk) 07:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet / meatpuppet investigation
Hi, just to let you know that your name has been mentioned in evidence at an open WP:SOCK / WP:MEAT investigation. Sockpuppet investigations/Falconkhe.  Esowteric + Talk  10:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/Falconkhe. Thank you. Possibly WP:MEAT rather than WP:SOCK.  Esowteric + Talk  11:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The clerk suggested that I take this matter to the Admin incidents noticeboard instead:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at AN/I regarding possible meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry. Thank you.  Esowteric + Talk  11:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You can find the thread here: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.  Esowteric + Talk  11:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. &mdash; Scientizzle 16:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

See also my comment here: User talk:Falconkhe. &mdash; Scientizzle 17:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)