User talk:Thelonerex

Welcome to Wikipedia. I notice that you removed content from However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that is relevant to the article. You have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. StaticGull Talk  14:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008
Please do not make test edits to articles, as you did with this edit to Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi, even if you intend to fix them later. Such edits constitute vandalism, and will be reverted. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Quaeler (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are you always try to remove Critisim in Ahmad Raza Khan article???
Dear, Please hold your nerve. I noticed that this is almost a dozen time, you try to remove Critism section in the said article. That is not a healthy attitude. Please avoid any such rubbish further. We are waiting for your positive editing. Allah HafizMarrigreat (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Today once again the whole criticism section has been removed by some one except just two sentences but I thankful to your contribution as always. I once again put it back. You have full authority to edit it as suit to you as this is not my property. Take care. Allah Hafiz. Marrigreat (talk) 10:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

May 2009
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. - Binary TSO ???

Please write any such thing you got in 'controversy' portion and that shall remain there and will not removed. Don't distort the article by inscribing what you wrote in the 'about-me' portion. Thank you!

I again request, or I will officially ask the Wikipedia administration to take action against you. The thing you wrote is unacceptable, to the core. I can write like this in Ashraf Thanvi's article, too. Thelonerex (talk) 10:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Your revert to an unencyclopedic and error-riddled version of Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi
Greetings, you recently reverted Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi to an earlier version, after I spent considerable time moving it at least closer to being a proper article. The edit your restored included such ludicrously biased content as:

''Even after writing a single book on a single subject, one becomes an author. Those who have had to their credit a dozen of books or so, they are usually known as great authors. But about Imam Ahmad Raza Khan, who has written hundreds of books on various subjects?''

This is completely unjustifiable. Please help us keep Wikipedia neutral and educational. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

If you think that's unjustifiable then correct it in an unbiased and impartial manner, don't alter the entire article; bring it 'closer', as you regard, to being a proper article in a proper manner, don't modify the entire article. Thank you! I am looking forward to see a positive response of this.Thelonerex (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've made significant changes to the article, it's much neutralized now. I plead that don't alter the article. Thank you! Thelonerex (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:KIOSK 58.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:KIOSK 58.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, 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, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, 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 files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 05:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

January 2010
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Raza Khani Founder.  Spike Toronto  08:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi as a content fork
Greetings, the article Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi is a content fork of Aala Hazrat, so I've proposed its deletion here:Articles_for_deletion/Ahmed_Raza_Khan_Barelvi.

I suggest we delete that article, and then move Aala Hazrat to that title, as "Aala Hazrat" is a completely unacceptable POV honorific title. I noticed that you reverted my cleanup from yesterday, but please understand that Wikipedia articles must be neutral; they must consist of basic facts that both Raza Khan's supporters and opponents would agree are factually correct. Opinion, praise, and support of one sect or the other are not acceptable. Please help to maintain a neutral, credible article with proper sourcing from a variety of perspectives. Stability Information East 2 (talk) 06:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Rtokarachi.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Rtokarachi.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 23:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Your continued reversion to POV versions of Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi
Please see my comments on the Discussion page of that article. You have, on multiple occasions, switched the 10kB article of reasonable Wiki-quality to a 23kB article chock-full of blatant POV. Please refrain from ruining the work of multiple editors who have worked to make the article neutral and informative. Further, please provide an Edit Summary when you make changes, so people can at least attempt to understand why you're changing the article. Your edits thus far have been very unhelpful, and have not cast the subject of the article in a good light, as sectarian flattery really does not come across well on Wikipedia. Stability Information East 2 (talk) 09:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Filing Incident report over your unjustified reversion of Ahmad Raza Khan
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Stop reverting Ahmed Raza Khan, your version is simply a bad article
You need to stop reverting the Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi article. I've clearly explained in Discussion the many ways your version is totally inappropriate. How can you even think you're doing ARK's followers a favor by promoting such a poor article, full of flattery, insults to other groups, and just general unencyclopedic content? The best way to help readers understand the Barelvi movement is to provide credible, neutral, well-written information about the subject. The 10kB version provides that, the 23kB version does not. There is no doubt in my mind that any non-involved, objective editor would favor the 10kB version, so I have no problems reverting to that version and bringing this edit war to the attention of whatever mods necessary. Your refusal to even try and justify your version is good evidence that even you know your version is inappropriate. So why do you even bother to keep reverting it? Stability Information East 2 (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Replying to your posts:


 * Your version is not appropriate; if neutrality means to you to be unjustifiably disrespectful towards the subject by altering certain facts and removing much of the truth, then on no grounds you are allowed to revert that article from its erstwhile and proper size to the shortened version which clearly exhibits your attempt to spoil the article


 * How is the 10kB version "disrespectful"? Please cite concrete examples on the Discussion page, like I did, comprehensively, for the 23kB version.  I removed honorifics like "his Holiness", which are completely unobjective and not allowed in encyclopedic writing.


 * Don't mislead yourself to think that the self-created properness will ever be supported by anyone given the fact that how abruptly and wrongly you curtail the entire version to the one which satisfies only you in terms of its properness.


 * "Mislead"? You must be joking.  Do you honestly thing that any neutral editor is going to support your labeling another religious group as a "deviant sect"?


 * Please, again, give concrete examples, on the Discussion page, of parts of the 10kB version you find "disrespectful". Further, taking out blatant flattery and leaving objective facts is not "removing much of the truth."  Do you seriously not understand what the word "objective" means?  That means that both supporters and opponents of Ahmed Raza would agree on the facts, and the 23kB version is blatantly written to favor the Barelvi side and insult other competing beliefs. Stability Information East 2 (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Getting rid of the single most offensive part of the 23kB article "deviant sects" does not in any way make the article fully NPOV. The 10kB version of the article is clearly derived from the 23kB version, and editors did improve on the 23kB to make the 10kB in the first place, before you came along and inappropriately reverted it.  Rather than you telling others to fix the train-wreck that is the 23kB version, you could attempt to improve on the 10kB version by adding verifiable, neutral, footnoted material.  You can't just keep reverting to the 23kB version; no neutral editor will support you in this.  Stability Information East 2 (talk) 12:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

One of the issues with reverting without attaining consensus is that it does not allow readers of the encyclopedia to see a stable article day-to-day. If you revert on the page after protection expires without first reaching an agreement on the talk page (see WP:DR if you need assistance with this), I will be forced to block you. NW ( Talk ) 18:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Your edits.
Please look at other people's feedback on your edits. Right now you contribution to Wikipedia is effectively Zero since just about every edit you make is deleted. It's like you are writing letters to government officials and they are instantly thrown in the rubbish. - SimonLyall (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry. (blocked by –MuZemike 02:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC))

You may contest this block by adding the text below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.