User talk:Babbarshair

Welcome

 * Thanks ... --Babbarshair 12:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Testing
Hi, I've reverted your addition of a caricature to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Using someone's death as a source of amusement is likely to be offensive to a quite a few people. I hope you understand. Best regards. Nazli 05:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion Mirza Basheerud Deen Mahmood may be an impostor. However redirecting a page with his name to Impostor does not make sense on Wikipedia. I've redirected the page to Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. Nazli 05:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Nazli 06:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Nazli 06:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The links were inactive or missing therefore I added the general redirect link which is the position of Muslims in general. You can certainly disagree with that. I admitt my mistake about Hakim noor uddin's article. He is an important figure in the Ahmadi community and it was happened in haste. Regading the seemingly offensive picture, I don't see how it could be taken in wrong context. As the article suggests, Mirza sb. is a controversal figure, and the picture was just the depiction of this notion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it presents how different view points are held about a person. I wanted to contribute but its unfortunate as how my things can be taken as offensive. I still belive that picture would not compromise the article and its up to you if you want it there or not. I think I remeer similar pictures or other articles. --Babbarshair 07:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have seen ur recent changes in Ahmadi related Artical. I know u may not like the Ahmadies for ur personal belief what so ever, but it does not mean that you start reverting and puting ur personal belief on the articals. There are many related artical where your personal point of view can be put and added. Try to keep ur information related where it required. If information does not include any use full thing in any artical can be reverted back. Pls consider the Artical regarding Personalities are strickt about the personalities. Puting ur point of views does not bring any thing init. Wikipedia has a neutral policy ! for Wikipedia it is not allowed either for example to say that Mirza Ghulam was right or wrong or his death was Accursed or not! these are personal point of views, so pls consider this before you attempt to do anything. regards phippi46 13:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please don't make personal remarks and delete things. If you have something contribute rather destroying work. And for and details see the talk:Mirza Ghulam Ahmad --Babbarshair 14:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * which personal remarks did I made here ? if you read the lines above again, u may see what I was saying. You want to put some information for readers, fine, put it where it relats and not where it does not make any sence, there are alot of other related artical for you to edit. 2nd I think you are new on wikipedia, and you have a hot brain about some of the beliefs of Ahmadies, I do not also accept some of there belief, but it does not give me any right to force my point of views and mis guide the readers, remember we are here to present a neutral point of view to the world, people who are reading these artical trust Wikipedia for all purposes and for references, that is why it is very important to be neutral. I hope you understand my point, if not I m happy to assist you. regards.. phippi46 16:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In you comments you made speculations about my beleifs which I take as offensive. We are not here to make speculations about people rather contributing with references. Thanks and I hope you respect people's work. --Babbarshair 16:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Great that u understand that! however please also consider that references you are puting in artical are obviously Biased Anti Ahmadiyya website references which are also offensive to some of our readers. If you consider that you should not be offended by remarks, please be just and do not offend other readers. There are other Artical, just go and search them and they are more realible and suitable for such things. But about Biographical Artical it is not suitable to disgrase any person, it will open a pandora box for other users to put offensive material on Muslim related artical. regards

It is true that I can not read urdu but this is not the point which i want to make. My point if simple, on wikipedia we are not usually encourage to put our own point of views. For example the reference you put are biased on one openion and in one direction that is Anti Ahmadiyya websites. How can some one claim that the material which is published on Ahmaiyya site is edited..even if it is edited to suit something, we must accept it as an Official point of view of a community, we dont have to agree with it, but we have to accept it as Official point of view. So if you put some information from an Anti Ahmadiyya web site it will be biased as on the official web site you dont find this information, the best informaiton will be if we can match this information on both sides, other wise, regardless true or false, it will remain Biased and that is against the Policy of Wikipedia. That is why i have suggested earlier that there is no restriction on puting information on open plate form like Wikipedia, but instead of puting on this artical there are other artical where this information can be put it. For example, there are Artical like Islam and Quran, but Critism on Islam is a totally different Artical, so the Islam Poisition is defined in Islam Artical, but Critism was defined in other Artical. If a Bio Artical like Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a Bio Artical, the Critism or his so called failed Prophecies, will not suit for this Artical. You can even creat a new Artical more suitable to the title and information against him or his Community. This will be more sources, more reliable and athenticated rather called Biased and may be reverted repeatedly. And we are here to be neutral even we dont belief on such things, did not give us right to present information which is offensive to any one, no matter which faith he or she belongs... regards..phippi46 12:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Its not 'for Ahmadi's only' article and nor they have exclusive rights on this. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was famous figure in history and people can present facts about him in the light of varying sources. All references are from his own writings. Please get yourself familiar with wikipedia before deleting sections from an article. I wish you could read Urdu to learn in orgional the message and claims of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. with Regards, --Babbarshair 12:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad
Thank you for your contributions to the Mirza Ghulam Ahmad article. I hope you've had a good experience with Wikipedia so far and continue as an editor! ^_^ -- ElectricEye  ( talk ) 15:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, --Babbarshair 15:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"rvv by Nazli repeated deletion when a discussion is on going"
Hi Babbarshair, I am sorry if you perceive edits as "vandalism". Two issues:

(1) If you are going to make an edit that is likely to be controversial (such as inclusion of the "infamous" cartoon! into Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) in the interest of civility the onus is on you to discuss it before making the edit.

(2) Deletion of what a user considers to be an offensive image after the user has given what (in his opinion of course) are good reasons in not vandalism.

Hope that clears up things. Best regards, Nazli 13:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am very careful when to use this word, infact I remember when I was a newcomer I was immediately accused of Vandalism and was repeatedly threatend. Anyway we have already discussed it couple of times, so lets move forward. As I can see you are a long contributor to Ahmadi related sites and I respect that, but I expected you to be neutral on this issue as you have stated on your user page, but on the contrary you have taken an ultra neo-Ahmadi stand. We are discussing the matter in a civilised way so why we have to delete things every time? It will simply waste our time and bring bad taste. Anyway, I deeply respect you and hope that we don't have any hard feelings. --Babbarshair 14:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * For your information there is a Artical namely "views on Ahmadiyyat" already exists, which is more suiatable to present ur information. Check it out phippi46 14:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and present info there. Seems like a good article. I am currently busy on Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's article and given the time I would work on it too. Thanks for your information. --Babbarshair 14:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Babbarshair, yes you remember correctly, all you earlier edits were redirections to Imposter. Given your educational background, the sophistication of your editorial skill as well as knowledge of wikipedia policy, and also given these edits, good faith was hard to assume. Your recent edits are much more constructive. Thank you. I disagree with your inclusion of the cartoon and yes I agree the this issue should be thrashed out on the talk page until a consensus in reached. In this regard please delete the offending image until the discussion is complete. Thanks. Nazli 16:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments regarding my editorial skills. From our discussion in the talk page its quite clear that Image is going to stay there based on wikipedia standards and general priciples of fairness. Its not an Ahmadi site. I hope we will put our energies to some constructive use rather than fighting on a small issue. Thanks --Babbarshair 17:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Babbarshair, I see that you have already made up you mind regarding the cartoon. What was the point of suggesting a discussion then? Best regards Nazli 02:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously I see no problem with the image considering it is according to the wiki statndards. Discussion was not my choice, but I had to do becuase you wanted it. So far so good. --Babbarshair 05:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Mirza Ghulam Ahmad
Please don't remove other people's comments from Talk pages. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on this logic you shouldn't have removed mine too. If you check the page size it was over 50KB, and I archived it and didn't delete it. Moreover, some users are deleiberately puting long statement to hide the orgional discussion. --Babbarshair 19:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I see nothing in your list of contributions where you archived the data. Simply deleting it is not archiving it.  I did a revert because your edit looked like vandalism.  Where did you put the information you deleted?  User:Zoe|(talk) 22:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please check 17:59, 11 January 2007, and then go down the page and click on Archive 1. I think it was a misunderstanding. --Babbarshair 23:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you, yes, and I am sorry for the misunderstanding. However, it would make things a lot easier if you indicated what you were doing in your edit summaries.  User:Zoe|(talk) 23:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. --Babbarshair 23:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Cartoon Image
Hi, Babbarshari, thank you for removing the picture. I have reorganized and cleaned up the Mirza Ghulam Ahmad discussion page so further discussion can take place in a meaningful and clearly understandable manner. Best reagrds, Nazli 02:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I admire your patience. I hope you sometimes visit critical sites on this article to know other views. Regards, --Babbarshair 02:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Pls do not revert the Tages added in order to keep the Artical neutral. Otherwise I will refere you to 3RR violatioin in the notice board. phippi46 15:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't revert it. I added information. You have reverted my edits. You make sure you don't qualify for it. --Babbarshair 15:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope that u understand that the Neutrality of Artical Mirza Ghulam was not Neutral, so pls keep it like that, we are not here to presents POVs, if there is something which fall within the POV then it must be warn to users. So untill the Artical remain with Biased Information it should be taged to warn the readers.
 * Sure, Becuase its not an Ahmadi site. The NPOV tag is for your wrong tags. --Babbarshair 16:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It is also not an Anti Ahmadi site as well and references you are givin are highly contraversial and readers must be warn not to make any conclusion based on contraversial references. phippi46 16:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The references and Material you cut and paste from your references web sites are copy right protected and it is against the policy of Wikipedia Copy right policies, e.g. "© Copyright Anti-Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam, All rights reserved " is one of your reference site that you edited in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Artical. Pls see the copy right policies of Wikipedia phippi46 16:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Beautiful, this is what I wanted to hear. I don't have to comment on this, as your understanding of intellectual property and its use is clearly reflected from this statement. You have just slain the whole world of reference and citations. Please don't remove your statement as it would be used for further references. --Babbarshair 16:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Offcourse If you can not see then I just showed your "art work" is copy right protected and against the Policies of Wikipedia, It is simple to understand, well if you dont wanna understand then it is ur Problem.. phippi46 16:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't expect you to raise the artwork issue now which would further complicate things and might result in the permenet inclusion of that image on this article, as reasons were given in my discussion for that image. --Babbarshair 16:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanx for your message. I have no hard feeling about anything, I am just trying in my openion keep the artical neutral, it is not personal vandeta also for me. as you may know, I live here in Germany, and I have many muslim friends, most of them are Turks and I respect them, if I am chris then it does not give me any right to critise any one, no matter which faith he or she belongs so you may be right, you know about ur faith better then me, I have studied Islam as well and for me if some one claim that he is muslim, I consider him Muslim, for me it is not important that he is Shiat or Sunnit or Ahmadi etc. In my view everybody has a right to be what he or she want it to be and that is it. I m willing to see any proposal from you as well where you suggest that how we mentain a neutral point of view and which information should present HOW ? Feel free to suggest. regards. phippi46 11:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Common Ground
Hi, Babbarshair, I agree completely, finding common ground is always the best option. Let's work towards it. Regrettably however, I need to attend to numerous real life issues, so please do excuse me for a few days. Best regards Nazli 11:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure and thanks for your message. --Babbarshair 17:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In the section where he allegedly used strong language against his enemies, pls provide a link where we can read from his Books and these lines on these pages phippi46 11:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. The link to the collection of his books is here. This link is also in the external links (Ahmadiyya) section of the main Mirza Ghulam Ahmad page. The exact refs, based on page numbers can be plus or minus due to edition differences. But most of them can easily be found. Thanks --Babbarshair 12:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ubaidullah Sindhi
You might want to keep an eye on this article. An Ahmedi editors is constantly putting manufactured reference to prove that he was a Qadiani. Yes it is a stupid claim that a nationalist Wahhabi freedom fighter is portrayed as a pro-british traitor to India, but the editors is pretty persistant about it. Hassanfarooqi 17:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Mirza Death.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mirza Death.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, then 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, then 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-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See 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 Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. gren グレン 06:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Prof of Mirza
Template:Prof of Mirza has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Peaceworld111 (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Prophecies of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Prophecies of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Prophecies of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – Batreeq ( Talk ) (Contribs) 02:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)