User talk:Reflexa9

January 2021
Hello, I'm FDW777. Your recent edit(s) to the page Khadim Hussain Rizvi appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Please check your talk page Reflexa9 (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * If there are reliable references, please post them on Talk:Khadim Hussain Rizvi. I have seem several unreliable ones giving a larger figure, but the only one obviously reliable is the Reuters one cited at present. FDW777 (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. But I’m sure you’ve gone through the pictures of the blessed funeral. I’m sure it’s just incorrect. And I hope you’ll look into it Reflexa9 (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021
Hello, I'm CommanderWaterford. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Khadim Hussain Rizvi—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The word Prophet is important. It is added to make it clear for people to know Reflexa9 (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * For people to know who it is about Reflexa9 (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * If it's not clear from context, the link to the article makes it clear. —C.Fred (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

But it’s more convenient to have the word written instead of assuming and wanting people to click. Some people do not tend to do so Reflexa9 (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

June 2021
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan, 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. —C.Fred (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan, you may be blocked from editing.

Specifically your claim about the deaths of numerous protestors, which is not present in the reference cited. FDW777 (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding “sunni Islam” to the page of Khadim Hussain rizvi. Was an important edit. I don’t see a reason of you undoing it. Reflexa9 (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "Sunni Islam" is not a religion. "Islam" is a religion; "Sunni" is a denomination of Islam. —C.Fred (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The eid about “ numerous protesters” is stated in Wikipedia itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Pakistani_protests Here is the link To be more precise the line “ TLP spokesperson Tayyab Rizvi claimed that the number of TLP workers "martyred" in the protests by the second day had increased to 12.[23]” To me mentioned. I hope this was more clearer Reflexa9 (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Do you see how the reference from that article states a policeman and a protestor were killed as fact, yet treats the claim by a far-right spokesman as just that, a claim? FDW777 (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The reason “sunni Islam” is mentioned is to make it easy for a reader. I’ve seen many people who search weather a person is sunni or shia. There are a lot of Wikipedia pages that state it the same way. And I hope you’ll consider it as it makes things clear. Reflexa9 (talk) 07:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

As for the mentioning of “claim” I hope you’ll mention it as a claim itself. As it provides more information. Reflexa9 (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Also an example for why “sunni” prefix is important. If we see “pedia” the reader might not know if it’s Wikipedia or encyclopedia. Both provide information. Yet are not the same. Hopefully you’ll understand Reflexa9 (talk) 07:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The better place to list it is as a denomination of Islam. I've done that. —C.Fred (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate that 💯 Reflexa9 (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Also do mention the claim of protestors that were killed. Because it’s actually true. The news wasn’t allowed to report it due to the threat of being defamed. Reflexa9 (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Or because they don't publish far-right propaganda as fact.... FDW777 (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

There were eye witnesses. It wasn’t a propaganda. Dead bodies don’t lie. Propagandas are usually by governments. If the government was so sure of themselves being correct they wouldn’t have blocked the media coverage. Also. Just make sure you at least mention the claim as well. Or else there will be no difference between a news channel who’s contorted by dictators and Wikipedia Reflexa9 (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is, Wikipedia requires reliable sources to add information to articles, and first-hand eyewitness accounts don't qualify. So, really, unless the story is picked up by the media (or maybe a UN group), we can't add it. —C.Fred (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

That is very shameful. On the part of internet as Wikipedia was supposed to be different from such false one-sided claims and information of media. Do Instagram videos count? Do go through this maybe this news channel’s statement about TLP news being blocked will be clear https://www.voanews.com/south-central-asia/pakistan-clashes-between-police-islamists-reportedly-leave-2-dead Reflexa9 (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

https://www.timesnownews.com/international/article/protests-erupt-in-pakistan-over-caricatures-in-france-1-cop-at-least-12-tlp-workers-killed/745442 This link claims it. Just like the others Reflexa9 (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The lest Wikipedia can do is mention that there were claims about the protestors being killed. There is a lot of missing information on Wikipedia about current content. Because it didn’t even mention the acid attacks on the protestors. Nor the shelling. Nor the dead. Even though it was all over Instagram and Twitter. With video evidence. Reflexa9 (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Quite the contrary. WP:Verifiability is designed to prevent false one-sided claims. There are some situations where information doesn't get added to articles until multiple reliable sources have all reported it. That said, there may be a slight Western bias in the policy, since it depends on freedom of the press and a robust journalism industry. —C.Fred (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Disappointed. Reflexa9 (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

September 2021
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Mumtaz Qadri, you may be blocked from editing. Pepper Beast   (talk)  19:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I stated an official request. I don’t understand what are you calling disruptive? What I wrote is crystal clear information. Without any false information or harmful editing. Maybe you should look into what you call disruptive editing. Reflexa9 (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello Reflexa9. Another administrator has removed the report you filed at WP:AN3, presumably since it was malformed. The report was inadequate. It didn't name the person warring or the article in dispute and contained no diffs.
 * Since I'm also an admin, I've looked into the dispute at Mumtaz Qadri myself. This dispute does not reflect well on you. Many of User:Pepperbeast's comments about WP policy seem valid. You are warned to make no more reverts at Mumtaz Qadri without getting a prior consensus on the article talk page in favor of your change. Otherwise you are risking a block for edit warring. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Since I'm also an admin, I've looked into the dispute at Mumtaz Qadri myself. This dispute does not reflect well on you. Many of User:Pepperbeast's comments about WP policy seem valid. You are warned to make no more reverts at Mumtaz Qadri without getting a prior consensus on the article talk page in favor of your change. Otherwise you are risking a block for edit warring. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I had a problem reporting. That’s why the report I made had defects. The problem that I had was. The edit I made was about the person. (In a sub section of monument) that’s why I stated what was pretty obvious. If a shrine is made beautiful. It should be mentioned so. But pepperbeast (user) stated that it “shouldn’t” be mentioned as it’s “unrelated” How can it be unrelated? It is about the exact same person who the article is about! He also stated that the source that I provided didn’t have enough. But it had enough of pictures to prove what I stated was pretty much the same. I don’t think anything I stated was “harmful” or “against wikipedia”  Reflexa9 (talk) 14:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

October 2021
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Mumtaz Qadri. Pepper Beast   (talk)  17:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

 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:. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  22:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)