User talk:Peaceworld111/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

December 2010

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Ahmadiyya. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. I can see no justification for removing the categories you removed. Dougweller (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

further discussion at talk. Peaceworld111 (talk) 16:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

discussion with User:65.49.26.2

no i am not targeting ahmadiyya i am targeting the method of presenting misleading information to readers by sticking citations when ever you can about ahmadiyya and its places of worship showing them as muslems not as ahmadiyya in a lot of articles , I don’t care if you write about ahmadiyya what ever you want as long as you make it clear to the readers that it is an ahmadiyya mosque or thing relating to it , not in such an ambiguous way as you did in the greater London article, as if you want to lead some readers intentionally towards the idea of ahmadiyya as being the authentic Islam . yes they proclaim islam but they are not approved by muslems in general, even if they are right in there claim ( which they are not ) they represent less than %0.005 among the muslem world. Hence by doing so your the one targeting muslems depriving them from their right to name themselves and name who ever share there believes as muslems and their places of worship as mosques . the realm of islam began more than 1400 years ago compared to 120 years the age of ahmadiyya . if this is a your way to invite people towards ahmadiyya then your deceiving them by taking advantage of the fastest growing religion in the world especially in the west, and it proves that you don’t have enough trust in your believes .

You also take advantage of wikipedia. Yes wikipedia is neutral and doesn’t take sides, but that doesn’t mean it is unjust , wikipedea is about delivering knowledge to people around the world by providing them with accurate information .which you did not , and i hope your tricks will not pass on users of Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.49.26.2 (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Hi. I will only discuss the issues from a wikipedian perspective and so will ignore all outside issues. This is not for me to discuss here as a wikipedian nor should you be doing so.
• First of all you start by stating that you are not targeting ahmadiyya you are targeting the method of presenting misleading information. However, your edits do not support your statement. How else could you define these edits other than pure targeting of Ahmadiyya related material: 1, 2, 3, 4. It is obvious you are targeting Ahmadiyya and it is untrue that you don’t care if [I] write about ahmadiyya.
• next you mention that I should make clear to the readers that it is an ahmadiyya mosque. If any reader is interested about who the mosque belongs to all they have to do is click on the link and read the article. Simple as that. However should it be stated as the image caption... in my view there in no need whatsoever. It is not possible to include every little detail about the mosque as a caption... what about it's location in london? what about when it was constructed? etc. Minor details should remain in its own article. Hope that makes sense to you. Hence it is not ambiguous (as you stated).
• In addition to the unambiguity to my reverts, you are the one who makes it unclear... see 4. What's the religion of the Ahmadis? Islam, isn't it? not Ahmadiyya or qadiani as you've vandalised the page. It is you who is being unjust. You are correct in saying that wikipedia is about delivering knowledge to people around the world by providing them with accurate information. But you don't follow your own statements and mislead people into reading that the religion of Ahmadis is qadianis. Here on wikipedia I am not trying hide anything or disguise any information. Ahmadis are considered to be non-Muslims by many Muslims and that is clearly written in the intro of the Ahmadiyya article, and that's the only place where it should be stated.
• What about the Greater London article? From your previous edits, it is evident that your effort has been to remove the Baitul Futuh mosque. Your second attempt is to replace it with London Central Mosque, so that it is easily accepted by editors. However there are several reasons for keeping Baitul Futuh.

• Firstly, look at the london central mosque image. The image angle is utterly wrong. Half of the image is of grass and not the mosque, wheras baitul futuh's angle is near-perfect.
• Secondly, there is something distinctive about baitul futuh, it is the largest in western EU and in my opinion deserves to be there more.
• thirdly, if you click on the main article there is already a pic of london central mosque there. Best to have different pics.Peaceworld111 (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Hi guys. Looks like you the two of you are engaged in an edit war across multiple articles. As it stands right now I would be perfectly justified in blocking the both of you. Please do continue discussion and please do not continue to edit war. Pursue dispute resolution if needed. Remember, nobody is right in an edit war, you are both automatically wrong for having engaged in one. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

you're mistaken the discussion above is with a different user.Peaceworld111 (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

5 Jan 2011

First : do not refer to any thing that is related to Ahmadiyya as islamic because it is not .

Ahmadis consider themselves Muslims so Wikipedia will also refer to Ahmadis as Muslims and their religion as Islam.Peaceworld111 (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2011 (UT

why did you remove my second advice to you which was;

Second ; dont you have any thing else to do other than staying on the internet for the whole day , go and get a life cause i really feel sorry for you .''

I hope i didnt touch a nerve by saying that, i really just want you to know that you are missing a lot in life when you confine your self to a small room for the whole day.

I removed it because the point of talk pages is to help us to discuss ways to improve wikipedia articles, i.e. not about people's personal lives...but thanks for your suggestion - maybe you could apply this to yourself so not to waste your own time vandalizing pages repeatedly.Peaceworld111 (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya POV

I noticed some of your edits indicate a POV in favor of ahmadiyyas. Its obvious edits such as this where you replace a sunni picture with an ahmadiyya picture. Or here where you order an ahmadiyya paragraph above sunni and sufi. or articles such as List of mosques in Canada and List of mosques in the United Kingdom which also have ahmadiyya bias. I think you give ahmadiyyas an unfair disproportionate coverage which does not look like WP:NPOV. Someone65 (talk) 08:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• With you're first question I guess that's the reason why I haven't reverted the last revert from an anonymous user - though I think here its more about the image than representation.
• Second - I ordered the sections alphabetically - if you think that WP:NPOV rules here over order its fine with me.
• With list of mosques its not that an unfair coverage is given, its more like we need more representation from other communities. If one community is under represented, that does not mean that a mosque image that happens to belong to another smaller community should be penalised and removed. Anyway this is list of mosques, its not about one community or another.Peaceworld111 (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

large mosques

Hello You edited my post about the largest mosques.Do you know that Al Azhar in Cairo and Mosque of Rome are much bigger than bait ul futuh in London.You may like to review what I stated but I request you to make amendments accordingly as there are 100s of mosques larger than this.

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamahumanok (talk • contribs) 01:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Hi, I don't see in any of your contributions, you editing something concerning Al Azhar mosque nor about your edit about largest mosques. All I see is that you editing Baitul Futuh as the second or third largest after mosque of rome and paris - which is a disputed issue and has thus been accommodated for in the Baitul Futuh and the Mosque of Rome article.
• Secondly of course if you are refering to the List of large mosques, there may be many mosques larger than Baitul Futuh or any other mosque. It is an incomplete list. If you could find a good reference about its approximate size of Al Azhar mosque, then why not add it yourself?Peaceworld111 (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Amc logo white minar.jpg

I removed this image from Template:Portal/Images/Ahmadiyya because we do not permit the use of non-free images on templates, per WP:NFCC #9. I've also removed the invalid rationale for template space, and tagged the image as missing a rationale and orphaned, as it is not used on Wikipedia. This makes the image subject to deletion. If you have questions, ask. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

didn't realize policy #9. Thanks anyway.Peaceworld111 (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

salam ,

can i give summary of this prophecy on hazrat Messiah Maood (as) prophecy section http://zh-cn.connect.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=29574945973&topic=17282 ?? Khalidnawaz123 (talk) 10:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Why do you ask? I am no gateway to editing Wikipedia. Except in a few cases, you and me like everyone else have the same right to editing Wikipedia. I would encourage you to read this introduction and the policies section as a starting guide to editing Wikipedia...and on a final note provide references (preferably secondary sources) whenever you edit (facebook not accepted). Hope that helps.Peaceworld111 (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Mirza Masroor Ahmad/University

Salam. Is there a reason first university Mirza Masroor Ahmad attended was removed from the Alma mater? I'm just curios. Khurramchaudhary (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope, I didn't remove any, there wasn't one in the first place.Peaceworld111 (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of my edit on Mirza page

Dear sir,

Please can you explain why you would consider removing my factual update on the Mirza page. My family are direct decendents of the Mogul empire and I can trace our lineage back to Jhangir and Lahore in Punjab. I am both proud to be a Mirza and Pakistani British businessman.

I think your interception and associated comments wholly inappropriate and indeed offensive.

Yours Ammar Yusuf Mirza 80.46.131.251 (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no article, nor any reference in support of your edit, hence I did not find any notability per WP:N. But my actual motivation for removal was because it appears personal advertisement to me which is doesn't follow Wikipedia guidelines per WP:COI#Self-promotion #5. Hope that helps. Peaceworld111 (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Notable Pakistanis

And once again on this page. Please refrain from removing information without first contacting the contributor. I find your actions extraordinary, especially when carried out anonymously..... 80.46.131.251 (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Same applies here per WP:N and WP:COI#Self-promotion #5. Peaceworld111 (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Friday Sermons (Mirza Masroor Ahmad) for deletion

When you have a chance, weigh-in on the discussion taking place on whether these pages should be deleted or not at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Friday Sermons (Mirza Masroor Ahmad). Khurramchaudhary (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

CREDO accounts

FYI -

If you are a member of content-oriented Wikiprojects, or can otherwise demonstrate creation and maintenance of article content, those qualify you as well. GA/FA participation isn't required, they're one of the options for the last criteria but not the only one.

I for example am a member of 3 content oriented projects and have a list on my home page of 125 articles I created, plus major edits and other contributions. I listed both the projects and a link to the article creation section of my homepage. That's more than enough; either by itself would be enough.

My advice is, assuming you meet either one of those criteria, document it and move yourself up.

Good luck! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Dude...

I doubt your even a taoist.. what I wrote comes strait from lao tzu the founder of taoism.. And your data is inaccurate and incredibly hazy.. Lao Tzu didn't write the tao te ching, which was written thousands of years after his time... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.218.240 (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You got that right...but that's irrelevant. Please follow the guidelines.Peaceworld111 (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Category: Islamic sects

Why did you remove it here:[1] ?

Answer here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, its listed as an Abrahamic religion and a monotheistic religion so doesn't make any sense listing it as an islamic sect.Peaceworld111 (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Hey Peaceworld111, I know you're probably upset with the recent deletion of the List of Friday Sermons article. I just wanted to say that you're clearly a skilled editor, and even if this article wasn't up to standard your contributions are still appreciated. Please don't take any deletion votes as personal attacks on you or your work. There's still so much you can do and help out on, and article creation isn't the most important thing compared to helping out with editing and adding content. Thanks so much, Yaksar (let's chat) 17:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou for that message.Peaceworld111 (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi

concealing the facts is a part of wikipedia policy as well? - you removed some words from "Dove World Outreach Center". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.59.89.56 (talk) 06:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi!your edit did not seem encyclopedic at all.--Peaceworld 21:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

New Article: Anti Ahmadiyya

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti_Ahmadiyya —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.23.147 (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Islamic relations

Hi Peaceworld,

Thank you for contacting me about the page moves. Per Wikipedia's guidelines about boldness, most page moves are not discussed before taking place, but that does not mean that moves cannot be reverted or discussed thereafter. Do you disagree with any of the page moves I initiated? If so, which ones and why?

Neelix (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I understand, the reason why you moved the articles was probably because of the historical relations between various nations/empires that happened to follow a certain faith. Now such articles also contain relationship between the teachings of the two faiths concerned. Here we have two very different topics which I think can be seperated into two articles titled Islamic - X relations and Islam and X, the latter one discussing the relationship between two faith's teachings and the former the historical/political relations. Thoughts?--Peaceworld 20:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Peaceworld,

I like the idea of having two separate articles, one discussing relations between the two and one discussing how the two have been compared. How would you feel about making the Islam and X titles disambiguation pages linking to Islamic - X relations and Comparison of Islam and X?

Neelix (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll reply when I come back. Sorry :) --Peaceworld 15:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Look's like this has already been dealt with. I don't think there will be any need to discus further.--Peaceworld 17:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge

You proposed a merge of Akber Choudhry into Khatm-e-Nubuwwat Academy in February, but you did not follow it through. Please advise if you are going to go through with the merge, or should the tags be removed. I understand that you are on a wikibreak so I am not expecting an answer soon. Have a nice break. --Muhandes (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Responded on articles talk page.--Peaceworld 17:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad bibliography

The article Mirza Ghulam Ahmad bibliography has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The chap is notable, but a list of books by him isn't. The text can be folded into his article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. William M. Connolley (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)