SyedNaqvi90

Earlier talkpage content

Source? Could you please provide a source for the number of Shias in Pakistan per your edit here? Currently that section refers to the US State Department, which speaks of "a Shi'a minority ranging between 10 to 20 percent". The CIA World Factbook, which is used as a source earlier, says "Muslim 95% (Sunni 75%, Shia 20%)", which would put the Shias at about 21% of all Muslims. The Pew Forum gives a rather low estimate of 10%-15% of all Muslims. In an article based on an interview of Vali Nasr, the Christian Science Monitor gives the number as "only 20 percent of Pakistan's 165 million people", which would again put the Shias at 21% of the Muslim population. I found several similar estimates, but no reliable source for 30%. Where did you get that number from? Huon (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Good question, all the sources stating the fact are based on either 1981 or 1998 census report. Hence these sources are though correct yet old, and need to be updated, according the to current estimates the actual Shia population is more than 30% of Pakistan on this link, since in the last census reports great number of Shia families publicly never exposed their Shia faith by practicing "Taqiyya", due to reason that they feared getting killed since during early 80s till 90s, the last two decades were bloody and the Shia's in Pakistan had to face mass execution by the hands of extremist Deobandi and Salafi organizations, many Shia groups continue to practice Taqiyya since they fear death by the hands of Anti-Shia forces that use to dominate Pakistan at that time. There was a complete lawless situation, and yes no body talked about the genocide that the Shia had to suffer by the state sponsored extremists.Overwhelming results regarding Shia execution in Pakistan. Last year i attended a "Inter-Faith Religious Harmony Convention" at the Marriott Hotel in Karachi, the convention was presided by the Judges from the Supreme Court Bar council, Secretary of Interior, Secretary of Religious affairs and many notable Scholars. In the convention they all laid emphasis on co-existence and facts regarding the total sectarian division in Pakistan and stated this; "Around 65% of Total (To be precise) Pakistani Muslims are Sunni Muslims and there is a minority 30% Shi'a Shia Ithna 'ashariyah Muslims, while remaining 5% of the Muslim population comprises Salafis, Nizari, Sufi and Zikri. Then the secretary of religious affairs (Mr. Agha Sarwar Raza Qazilbash)[1] stated that Muslims are divided into following schools: the Barelvi 39%, Shia Ithna Asharia 25%, Deobandi 21%, Ahle Hadith or Salafi 5%, Ismaili 5%, Bohra 0.25%, and other smaller sects." Now lets talk about this division, The Barelvi, Deobandi, Ahle Hadith, Salafi are sub-sects of Sunni Islam, While Shia Ithna Asharia, Ismaili, Bohra are sub-sects of Shia Islam. Then everyone talked about various problems like religious freedom, sectarian hatred, etc while one of which was Taqiyya in practice, due to which the actual Shia estimates in Pakistan has always been uncertain and is certainly more then the mentioned 25%. I hope you understand Taqqiya then hopefully you'll understand my claim and what this is all about. SyedNaqvi90 (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Thanks, I've added that source to the Religion in Pakistan article. But I couldn't verify Agha Sarwar Raza Qazilbash's statement; those numbers don't seem to be present on the ministry's website. When and where did he make it? Huon (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC) You are welcome brother, yes i have seen your contribution and has slightly edited it, anyways thanks. And yes I'll get back with you on this though i am a witness to it, still i think you wouldn't accept that. And yes i didn't mention the site for the reason of those numbers, i mentioned it so that you realize he is no fictional character. I and think we both need to cooperate regarding all our edits on Wikipedia, specially things related to Pakistan and Shia related stubs or articles. SyedNaqvi90 (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC) I am extremely unhappy with your edit (which I largely reverted); I've detailed my reasons on the talk page. Especially the change of the census number sourced to the US State Department seems outright bizarre. I mean, anybody actually looking at the source will see that the 15% you introduced simply isn't there. Similarly the Madrassah percentages: The numbers may or may not be correct, but they weren't in the source you gave. Where did you get them from? Huon (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Well i am sorry, didn't know those citations were edit by you, and yes that Madrassah related info is a rough estimate based on demographic divisions. Any how the article is fairly correct and doesn't require any further edits. SyedNaqvi90 (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Non-free files in your user space Hey there SyedNaqvi90, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:SyedNaqvi90. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of files removed today here. Shut off the bot here. Report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Thank you for notifying me, i didn't knew it. SyedNaqvi90 (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Your signature Hello. It appears that your new signature [2] no longer meets the requirements outlined in the signature guideline. In part, it specifically states that, "signatures must include at least one internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page." Please update your signature accordingly. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks for notifying me, i did a mistake while editing My preferences. Now its fine.SyedMANaqvi (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Thank you very much for your prompt attention! — Kralizec! (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Again no source I've reverted you on Muhammad Ali Jinnah because once again you added something which contradicts the sources we have, but didn't provide a reliable source of your own to support your addition. Wording such as "some critics" is stongly discouraged by our guideline on weasel words. If you know who those critics are and where they said or wrote so, please be specific so that readers can verify the article's content. If you don't know who those critics are or where they said so, you probably shouldn't add it in the first place. Yours, Huon (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Bilawal Bhutto Zardari Please see WP:BLPCAT. "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question". Now, I cannot find any reference that states Bilawal has publicly self-identified as a Shi'a, so the category is inappropriate. Regards, WWGB (talk) 01:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Faking numbers In late May, you were blocked for "continued alteration of cited statistics." Since you got unblocked, you've faked numbers ranging from the Pakistanis in Oslo and Norway via Shias in India to Persian people in Pakistan (where you added sources, but unfortunately those sources don't confirm your numbers). Then there was this bizarre edit where you confused all inhabitants of Kashmir with the Kashmiri people as defined in the article and also managed to make the source you added look as if it was something else (while removing the original source; wasn't that something you had agreed not to do?). Right now all your edits have to be checked to determine whether they're constructive or whether you're just faking numbers. I am rapidly tiring of doing so. Please give me a reason why I shouldn't inform the unblocking admin that you've violated the editing restrictions multiple times. Huon (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Hello, well seems like you are stalking me! All my edits now are positive and are assumed of WP:GOODFAITH. Past was past i did some stupidity and i accepted it, but now what ever i did was cited or referenced. Pakistanis in Oslo and Norway via Shias in India All of my edits regrading these particular articles are justified, Infact i was the one who corrected figures at Shias in India, before it stated Shias in India were the second largest population after the Shia of Iran, you later further re-edited it, so thank you i appreciate it. Regarding population of Pakistani around Oslo is concerned, please need to understanding it, before it stated 31,000 Pakistani live around Oslo, while all sources state that overwhelming Majority of Pakistani live in and around Oslo, out of 40,000 Pakistanis in Norway, hence i thought of correcting it to the figure that is actual makes sense and is a figure around 37-38,000 Pakistanis in and around Oslo, Norway. While the edits regarding Kashmiri people in Pakistan is concerned guess you must be aware of the total population of Kashmiri People in Azad Kashmir, Kashmiri of Mirpur, Pakistan. And those having Kashmiri ancestry. Hence Kashmiri Population is far more then the mentioned source 104,000 was quiet shocking and unbelievable figure, and every Pakistani will consider it biased. Check this source for your satisfaction, Kahmiri population in Pakistan. While Edits regarding Persian people in Pakistan has nothing to do with alteration of any removal of sourced text or figure, i rather added a suggestive estimate like the other countries having deep cultural and religious attachment towards Persia. Hence these edits are justified, and guess i have not violated any law in particular, guess all of these were minor edits really don't need any particular reasoning when they are referenced and ethical. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Too bad you didn't give any sources for most of your edits, while ignoring what sources there were and even misrepresenting your own sources for others. Take Oslo, the most obvious case: The number of 20,036 Pakistanis was sourced to, among others, this newspaper article, and while I can't really read Norwegian, the table isn't hard to understand: Pakistan: 20.313 Somalia: 9 708 Sverige: 7 462 (2007) ... I double-checked by looking at the numbers from the Norwegian bureau of statistics, which gives a number of 20,812 for January 2009. So while the 20,036 number probably was a little outdated (possibly that was the January 2008 number?), it's closer to the sources than your "improvement" by a factor of four to ten. Now I'd like you to give a source for 25,000 Pakistani immigrants - you can't provide one because you're making stuff up, explicitly forbidden per WP:NOR as you've been told before. Norway is similar, as is the number of Shias in India where you just deducted a few millions. Did you check the 2001 census that was claimed as a source? I doubt it, for when I tried to find out what the census had to say, I couldn't find him saying anything at all about the Shias in India. Given that those who provided the earlier numbers seemed to be making stuff up, I would be very surprised if you could provide a source saying that the previous estimates (which were added in two different edits) were both wrong by exactly 10 million. Since the original estimates were made up, and yours were made up as well, yours are no better or more believable than the previous ones. Next, the Kashmiri. The article explicitly says that it's about "a Dardic ethnic group [...] who speak the Kashmiri language". I'd guess that the people living in Azad Kashmir mostly speak something else (Urdu?) and thus aren't counted as members of this ethnic group. If you checked the numbers for India, you'd have realized that out of 9 million inhabitants of Kashmir claimed by your very own source, only five and a half seem to belong to this particular ethnic group - while your source says nothing at all about ethnic groups. Finally, Persians in Pakistan. Yes, you had two sources, one of which seems to be written by a scholar with a relevant specialty, and it gives a number of 1,400,000 (compared to a number of 1,377,000 in the article). The other looks less reliable (its estimates for other countries seem simple rehashes of CIA World Fact Book numbers, it doesn't provide any justification for the Pakistan number, and there's no indication of either scholarly accomplishment by the writer or editorial oversight), and it gives a number of 2 million. When you edit the article, those two sources are supposed to support an estimate of 2-3 million. The 2 million I can understand (though I still think it's a strech), but the 3 million are just your imagination. In all of those cases except the Persians, your edits made the artilces look as if the original sources (even the fictious Indian census) supported your made-up numbers, bizarrely so in the case of the Kashmiris where you let the reference say that it was from Ethnologue when you actually had changed it. Apparently you don't see any problems with this kind of behaviour despite numerous previous warnings and even blocks. As I said, I tire of checking whether your edits actually agree with what sources (including your own sources) say on the subject, and I don't want to continue to do so indefinitely. I also don't think that just ignoring how you add made-up numbers to various articles is in Wikipedia's best interest. I've asked the unblocking admin for advice. Huon (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Too sad you are doing this to me, i don't really understand why? Most of my edits are very valuable and i am determine to do further great contribution towards Wikipedia. Yes mistakes do happen, and you might have also done it. Guess i am improving my self regarding full filling the Wikipedia criteria. What ever i did wasn't vandalism or alteration, i have laid my claim about things I think are actually either old or partially incorrect. I have done nothing wrong that you repeatedly request the un-block or block admin to suggest something over me, I can't understand your personal victimization. Guess you'll always disagree with my edits regarding some topics, and make them controversial. Please give me time, to improve my self, you are pointing me out on every single minor edit i have done, now that is truly victimizing me for no reason, i admit that 3 million figure is kinda over-rated. And yes numbers regarding Shias in India were slightly reduced by me, because i was reluctant in further improving it, since its not of my concern. And yes Ethnicity is not by people who speak that language of that particular ethnicity, its rather about your cultural and ethnic roots and your ancestry. So please try to understand this rather then arguing on every single thing for the sake of proving me wrong. Pakistan's Kashmiri Population is not more neither less then that of India its rather culturally mixed with other Pakistanis, most of the Kashmiris reside in Urban areas of Punjab, now would you deny that they aren't Kashmiri just because they adapted a different language? Please think for a while and kindly withdraw from your claim regarding my future, by suggesting the Un-block admin Mr. Bwilkins. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC) I'm not quite sure what to say to this. You're repeatedly and deliberately inserting numbers that are made up. I don't think that counts as a mistake - sure, we all make mistakes, and that's not a major problem. But doing so deliberately is problematic. You "admit the 3 million figure is kinda over-rated"? Why did you insert it when your sources say otherwise? Just a typo? Are the Norwegian numbers for which you didn't present sources supposed to have been typos as well? The numbers probably were outdated. In such cases there are various possibilities. For example, you could have added a date to the article's numbers ("there were X Pakistanis in 2008") - then Wikipedia still reports outdated numbers, but the reader will know. Or you could have looked up newer numbers, added them to the article and updated the source (by now there are the 2010 numbers from the statistical bureau, which are again a little higher, but still far short of the 25,000 in Oslo). But what you did is insert what you felt would probably be a good estimate. That's unacceptable. You're not that good at guessing, and even if you were, it would still be unacceptable. Wikipedia is not about truth or facts, but about verifiability. If you know something, but can't provide a source, don't add it to Wikipedia - and especially don't add it while claiming a source that doesn't confirm what you wrote. Now of course not every single word or line you write needs to be supplied with a reference; that would be overkill. But you should be able to provide a source whenever someone asks for one, and "I feel that's about correct" doesn't count. I can only repeat: Sources, sources, sources. If the most reliable academic sources said the sky was green, that's what Wikipedia would report, no matter how blue it looks to you or me. If the most reliable sources all manage to get the number of Shias in Pakistan wrong and you know better - sorry, the sources win. And that's "the most reliable sources win", not "the source wins which comes closest to my personal opinion". You have been told before (not just by me), you have been blocked for violating this core policy before, and still you don't seem to even see a problem. Huon (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Well my edits weren't deliberate, they were justified by reasons, i don't wanna argue for the sake of argument, yes I'll take many of your questions in consideration, and try improving myself not to do such stupidity again. But i also expect you to stop personally victimizing me, which infact has been done repeatedly. I'll do my best to satisfy people in future. Now since i am accepting my mistakes regarding edits about Pakistanis in Norway, but the rest do make sense and are sourced. So would please help me rather then editing my contribution to a level you feel satisfied with it? I have accepted your views on cases, but you never accepted mine. Now that is why i suspect your Assume Good Faith. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Again Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. –Syncategoremata (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC) I found this edit yesterday which worried me, and I was even more worried about it given your previous record of problematic edits to statistics (and an ensuing block). Because of that I reported you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents but it seems I shouldn't have done that as this edit was not seen as very problematic by the administrators, and my apologies for reporting you there. But the edit itself was not very clever. The figures in the article may be entirely wrong and they certainly need a reference. However if you know that they cannot be right, it would be best to either put something on the talk page or to simply delete that section from the article until you could find a reference. The sort of edit you made (just swapping one language for another) looks just like a very common kind of vandalism, especially when you didn't even bother to provide an edit summary. My apologies again and all the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Hello, well that edit is actually based on the population variation in the Muslims world, URDU is widely spoken all across Pakistan, and by the overwhelming majority of Indian Muslims hence by population it is and should be the second largest language, While Bangladesh is the only Bengali speaking Muslim country. See every edit i do is by assuming good faith, hence i thought of correcting it they way it should be, if you consider it vandalism feel free to edit it. But i would request you to kindly see the population ratio of those who speak Urdu and those who speak Bengali, Muslims. And please before reporting users to the Admin, you better write on their talk page and then think about messaging the admin about it. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC) My main point is that it is not a good idea to edit things such as this without giving a source or an explanation. But also your idea that Urdu must be spoken by more Muslims than Bengali is pretty plainly wrong, which again shows why you should not be making such edits without a source. Population of Bangladesh (who are 98% Muslim and most of whom speak Bengali) ~162 million; total speakers of Urdu: ~66.5 million (both figures from the relevant Wikipedia articles). So please do not edit such figures without a source and please do not edit based on what you think "should be" the case: as we can see here, the result might as well be vandalism. As for your other point: yes, I have learned my lesson. I will certainly take your advice in future and do as you suggest. My apologies once more for that mistake. All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Well,i respect your views, and i accept the edit was not sourced. But you see Urdu is the national language of Pakistan and is among the official languages in India. Urdu is the part of the basic curriculum of the Pakistani education, hence keeping the 175,376,000 figure of Pakistani Muslims in mind, and 150,000,000 of Muslims in India, approximately 70% - 80% are fluent in Urdu and speak Urdu, hence this claim is kinda genuine brother. Though aren't many sources to prove it. Hence feel free to edit, I'll recommend you to foresee it before doing it. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC) The figures you give here sound perfectly reasonable to me, but they don't agree with the statistics given here nor do they tally with the figures given in the Urdu article, so I have no idea what the true figures might be. As for the Muslim world page, I doubt I will be editing this or anything else there: it's on my watch list only because was reverting a problem there recently. My apologies for being rather more confrontational here than is polite or useful, and my thanks to you for being so accommodating and reasonable yourself. All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC) You are most welcome, in future i hope we both can coordinate with each other and further improve the content on Wikipedia. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Shia Islam in Pakistan This is with regards to your message in which you threatened me to charge with vandalism. I put forward once again the points which I have been trying to make you understand time and again, I am not here to vandalize any article, nor do I have any grudges with Pakistan. I only want to state that if you claim that Pakistan's Shia population is more than India than please cite those multiple sources also which claim India's Shia population to be more than Pakistan and second largest. Since you claim against India and put its name in your article, I include both claims, I never deleted your claim. This is my last message to you with regards to this. If you improve and adapt neutrality well and good, else your article will be tagged by multiple users. About India's claim being neutral. Times Network, DNA, Indian Express and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh none of them are Shiites, so you better mind your words prior to claiming anything which may be regarded as direct attack. Please prove that the cited sources are Shiites or Biased against Pakistan. Regarding PEW Research Center, that's not at all authentic. A Shia NGO named as Al-Imam mentioned figures of 30 million years ago so was in 2006 as 40 million by Times Network. PEW report is no where authentic. Indian provinces were ruled by Shiites. Shiites have penetrated India since a long time. If you feel it incorrect, come and experience the influence, if not then cite neutral sources. Do you have Imam Ali's birthday as public holiday in even a single city of Pakistan??? Not even Iraq and Lebanon have it, but India does. However, your biased claim will be refuted shortly after the release of 2011 Census report of India. Pakistan's Shia population does not even match with 2001 Census of India then how come with 2011. Humaliwalay (talk) 05:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Hello, i am having some tough time trying to make you realize that Pakistan is considered the second largest Shia population, and when the Indian claim is there it also need to satisfy the International community, since there isn't any neutral source proving the Indian claim, the claim is rather dubious or uncertain. Pakistan never had a census after 1998 and all the census were not based on sectarian divisions. Hence what ever you say regarding India stays in India. Neither am i denying the Indian claim, but since that claim is self-published and has no international neutral sources to prove it, it will always be uncertain. I have cited at least three sources all neutral to prove my claim, that Pakistan is the second-largest Shia Muslims population guess you don't pay a look at them. I also don't regard Pew Research Center as an authentic site, but guess it is internationally proclaimed to be authentic and satisfies the Wiki criteria. See brother what i am saying is that articles should only be about Pakistan and India respectively, i am not playing with the Shia Islam in India by inserting the Pakistani Shia claim of being second largest, neither should you play the article Shia Islam in Pakistan by inserting sources about the claim that only you people regard to be authentic. Second-Largest claim yet stays with Pakistan no matter what, hence please don't do this. And yes I'll await for the 2011 census of India, till then please stop interesting anything in this regard. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Well, even I am having the tough time too, to make you understand my point. What International sources you are talking about?? However, I have kept the text unchanged by inserting few words as [as per some sources] in your sentence which directs towards India's Shia population to lesser than Pakistan. And have inserted internal link to direct the page to Shia Islam in India. This will be much better to arrive at a conclusion without any conflict. If you are OK with this well and good, because there seems no better way out other than this. So far your accusation about India's claim not being neutral, please find below the link of BBC which acclaims India to be second largest Shia populated nation. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/3605950.stm Humaliwalay (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Well thanks alot, that you have finally realized this, and have inserted the internal link so that the people could have an idea about both perspectives, now guess we have finally resolved the issue regarding Population differences. This debate is over, and yes we could now work together to further improve the articles. By the way this link is 6-years old, self-published article my Mr.Vinod Mehta, regarding population claim i can assure you that he is just claiming to be the second-largest Muslim and Shia population is India, he won't be able to prove it, despite of the fact that Pakistan is and has always been considered the second-largest Muslim & Shia Muslim population by the OIC, U.N, CIA factbook, Pew Research Forum, Vali Nasr (Shia historian and analyst), Iranian government, etc. Hence any one can question the credibility of the Indian claim. I mean no offense the facts just don't go with India in this matter, hence brother this population chapter is closed. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC) You keep on bringing new fictional issues and I will keep on refuting by real citations. The article published by anyone, had if it not been acclaimed by BBC or any other source which appendage the figures. It would have not been published by either sources. By the way, you claim that Iranian Government also approves of Pakistan population. Here is the link below of Tehran Times where they clearly mention about Indian second largest shia population: http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=166919 Upon this also, if your intellect is so strong that you are always right and rest all are wrong. Just answer one question. If you claim Pakistan's Shia population to be largest even that of Iran will BBC and other International Media or Pakistani Media publish that???? If your answer is NO, then learn how to scrutinize the facts. You claim about India's population hence you have to add the word FEW sources suggest. Humaliwalay (talk) 04:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC) I have edited Indian Shia Islam article after going through multiple sources and will keep the article as it is till the new census report of India gets released to match with the Pakistani claim in undisputed manner. Even I always knew that Pakistani Shia population is around 1/3 of entire population and so is India's but taking into overall Muslim population even considering 1/3 Shia figure of both Nations Pakistan is ahead by few numbers, I agree since Muslim population of India is 160 million and Pakistan's is 174 million. You may have a look. Humaliwalay (talk) 06:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Tourism in Pakistan Hello Syed, I see you keep adding the pictures of K2 and the national park to the first section. I am currently working on this article and repeadily re-adding the pictures to the inappororiate sections will cause me to take action. I will be writing a section of the mountain region of Gilgit-Baltistan, where I will use your pictures! Please have patience. I plan to do all the regions of Pakistan however it will take some time. Can I place your pictures in the Gallery section for future use? Thankyou. Fast track (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Hello Fast track, I too have seen some random IP repeatedly removing the images for no reason, hence i was inserting it again and again, you should have notified me, or else had mentioned it in the editing summary, about your clear objective. I agree with you that the picture were placed in an inappropriate section but a new section regarding Gilgit-Baltistan will solve the issue, you are most welcome to now use the image on the article, but these images should be there on the page, since no one really bothers to pay a look at the gallery. I hope in near future we both can cooperate together in regard to Pakistan's Tourism article. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Speedy deletion nomination of File:Wsu vertical color web.jpg A tag has been placed on File:Wsu vertical color web.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eeekster (talk) 10:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Speedy deletion nomination of File:Wichita NIAR.jpg A tag has been placed on File:Wichita NIAR.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eeekster (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC) TUSC token 706a3ab021be48f4c265311bc39a5b64 I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.50.7.158 (talk) 11:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Baloch people Hi, can you please stop putting Shia in front of sources that do not mention it, that's falsification of sources. You are calling my edits vandalism when in fact it is you who is vandalising. I want to clean up that article when I get more time. You will end up getting blocked if you continue to falsify information and push POV. If you believe there are some Shia Baloch you'll need a reliable source to back up that claim. Thanks!--AllahLovesYou (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Well guess you should know that Zardari is a Sindhi-Baloch tribe out of which majority are Shia, so is Asif Ali Zardari, hence you don't really need a source to prove that fact that Baloch too have few Shia Muslims in them, i am just adding what seems justified and since you don't always need a source to prove something obvious. Hence there are few Shia Muslims among the Baloch people. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC) I understand your point but we still need a reliable source which states that there are some Shias among Baloch people. There may be few Shias among the Taliban but we cannot write that in the article. That's W:POV and W:OR, if you want to be a good editor you gonna have to follow these rules.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Pakistan Hi, Your initial comments seems too harsh, rather disrespectful to me ! For your info, i am trying to make Pakistan article a GA class article, and it need work to make it one, i was so close to make Pakistan article a GA class couple of months ago but due to my busy schedule at office i got stuck and the duration of the GA nominee expired, soon after that guys from all around Pakistan started adding photos ( as if wikipedia is a photo gallary) of like just every thing to Pakistan article and started dumping every sort of detailed both referenced and un referenced to the article taking it back to stone age .... have you every tried to promote any article to GA or FA class ? well as a matter of fact i did, and one of my article is going to be a FA class soon (battle of yarmouk) as for pakistan it is my wish to have it promote to GA class and eventually to FA class, have you seen the india's article ? its FA class and only because user there in india stress more on quality of article rather then "quantity/length" of the article .... here in pakistan, though they do this in good faith, they try to put just every thing on the main page of the article, however the criteria for GA and FA class artilce is otherwise, you can have the article promoted to GA class sooner of there are less questionable stuff in the article and as per wikipedia's policies the size should be around 75 kb, the more brief and comprehensive your article is (obviously with the links to main articles below every heading) the more it gonna rise in quality. I can understand the wish of our people to add "pics" to the articles, but they unknowingly destroy the quality of the article, the same is the case with adding unnecessary material to the article when it already have a link to main page of that topic, for instance when there is an existing page on education in pakistan then wht is the need to add so much material in that section in the mean time when you are giving link to its main page ? keep it comprehensive and it will rock ! I would suggest you to have a look on wikipedia's quality article and also try to read some stuff regarding how to promote the article to GA and FA levels. The article of Pakistan will be more striking when its GA or FA class and have a star on top of it, rather then having absurdly pasted pictures on it and having paragraphs after paragraphs with un sourced material. So if you are a true lover of the country and wanna contribute, help me in improving the quality of the article and having it promoted to GA and then to FA level, and how you can do it, obviously you have to either read a lot on promoting article to GA or just follow my experience on it. Choice is yours. Regards. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 16:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC) I have reverted the edits to last version that i prepared for GA nomination, you can help make it more fine... i would suggest read this first Style guide. as for the transport section, if you feel you have a lots of materiel (obviously with sources) on this topic add it to the main article Transportation in Pakistan, and give a brief comprehensive intro of it in pakistan's article with a reference to the main article, i hope it will work for GA. Regards. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 07:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Shi'a Islam in Pakistan Removing reliable sources such as the ones I've added in the article is vandalism and you know that. If you find a problem with any of my edits please use the talk pages and discuss your concern in an appropiate manner, that is how Wikipedia works, but please don't post messages to me like the one you just did. Wikipedia articles are not made for the general public to spread their own theories, POVs and etc. My edits are backed by all the top academic sources and I removed unreliable news reports such as this one, which has no bases for the 30% Pakistani Muslims being Shias. The editor of that news article (Sukaina Hussain) used "US Department of State's Country Report from 2008" and Vali Nasr's The Shia Revival book as references, which actually disagree with her 30% figures completely. Vali Nasr claims that Pakistani Shias are up to "30 million" [3] out of the total 170 million people of the country. Sukaina made an error by reporting 30% instead of 30 million. Therefore, we can't use her as a reliable source in Wikipedia.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC) SyedNaqvi90, do you recall getting blocked twice before for insisting on your preferred sources for Shia demographic statistics? These reverts appear to be in direct violation of your editing restrictions. Should I just block your account now, or is this all the reminder you need to stop reverting and start using the talk page to discuss disagreements? — Kralizec! (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Hello, i haven't reverted any thing if you pay a look at the articles they all give an overview of the entire scenario infact they state what User:AllahLovesYou is trying to signify, while if you pay a look at User:AllahLovesYou edits are a giving an one-sided view, while he is using bogus claims to further mislead the readers. You should bring his work into account. I am not crazy that despite of being blocked multiple time before i would insist on doing the same mistake of ignoring the Wikipedia policy, before reverting any of the work by User:AllahLovesYou, i messaged him on his talkpage. I am the one who actually reached a consensus with User:Humaliwalay on article of Shia Islam in Pakistan. While User:AllahLovesYou is just reverting everything that he considers inappropriate which is a clear violation of Wikipedia policies. And let me remind you sir, i am improving a credibility after that sad incident of being blocked repeatedly in a month time. Don't except the same from me now. One should rather look into User:AllahLovesYou since he has be vandalizing all the respective articles, Islam in Pakistan, Religion in Pakistan, Sectarian violence in Pakistan, Shia Islam and Shia Islam in Pakistan. I hope you understand. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC) You are falsifying information, completely removing top academic sources from articles, and re-citing dead links as your sources. This isn't going to help you in any way. Why are you keep insisting that Shias in Pakistan are 30% when it's not supported by anyone else? Even Vali Nasr who is a notable Shia Professor in USA and claims to know it all tells us that Shias are 30 million in Pakistan that is covered in the 10-20% range. “ Pakistan is the second-largest Shia country in the world, with about 30 million population. [4] ” I spend hours improving these articles and you come along and revert all my hard work. Don't you have any respect for other editors? Also, I don't appreciate you keep calling my edits vandalism.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC) You've been reported As a result of you falsifying information, repeatedly reverting my constructive edits, POV pushing, and other misbehaving in Wikipedia, I decided to report you to the administrator who unblocked you on 30 May 2010. See User talk:Bwilkins#Problem user --AllahLovesYou (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Blocked for violating edit restrictions After examining several of the reverts you have made this week to Islam-related articles, I find that you are in violation of the editing restrictions you previously agreed to. Since you have resumed the same disruptive, POV-pushing behavior that got you blocked before, I am restoring the block. As multiple administrators and innumerable editors have told you, Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to push your agenda. — Kralizec! (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC) You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — Kralizec! (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC) This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). SyedNaqvi90 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I respect the Wikipedia policies, and have been trying my best to get more and more aware of other policies not known to me. The only reason i am being blocked here is that some user instead of discussing the article issues on the discussion page, went on a step further to sideline me by reporting me to the Un-block admin on a lame excuse. So far i think the only violation by me was that i didn't follow a rule that says you can't not reverted more then 3 edits in 24 hours, otherwise my contributions have always been constructive as you all can view them. The Admin has blocked me just because he is not willing to consider my case since i already have a bad history of being blocked 3 times in a row 2 months back. I was on probation and was doing well, hence this one-month block hardly makes any sense. My only mistake was that i reverted 7 edits in a day, which were there without any proper consensus on the discussion page and based on sectarian hate, if one is aware of the motives of the AllahLovesYou he'll certainly know what i mean. I hope the admin will realize that revert policy violation as a mistake, since i was not aware of it before. And in future i will not show such sort ignorant behavior regarding the Wiki-policies. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Decline reason: You seem to be accusing everyone of misdoing, except yourself. (X! · talk)  · @013  ·  23:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. For the record, you probably technically weren't in violation of the tree-revert rule, which only says that you may not revert a single page more than thrice in 24 hours. But edits such as this one, where you changed the numbers for what the CIA factbook says, are simply unacceptable. And unfortunately you have a history of blatantly falsifying the sources' numbers. Huon (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC) File copyright problem with File:Islam-by-country.png Thank you for uploading File:Islam-by-country.png. 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 created in your upload log. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Numbers changed with complete disregard for sources (again) I'm pretty tired of having to check your every edit for another instance of blatant disregard for reliable sources in favour of your personal POV. Edits such as this one are not acceptable. You have been blocked before, repeatedly, for faking numbers. Do you really want to go that route again? Huon (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC) Pictures of Pakistani military equipment Hello there, I found these pictures which you uploaded of Pakistani ammunition, ballistic and cruise missiles at IDEAS 2008: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Military_truck_carrying_IRBMs_of_Pakistani_Army.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:4_Babar_Curise_Missiles_on_a_Truck_at_IDEAS_2008.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ce/IRBM_of_Pakistan_at_IDEAS_2008.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bomb_Shells_produced_at_POF_WAH.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MP4_a_and_G3_produced_at_POF_WAH_under_licensed.jpg I would like to know if you have any more pictures and would you please upload them? I want to use them to illustrate the articles. Thank you. --Hj108 (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC) WP:AN/I notification Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Huon (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Blocked I have blocked you without an expiry date. If you wish to be allowed to edit Wikipedia again you will need to show understanding of the problem you have been causing and describe what will change in future. Note that this will need to be strongly focused on verifiability and sourcing. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC) This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). SyedNaqvi90 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Just saw your message and i am really surprised. Haven't used it from a long time my though Wikipedia is always signed in, guess my younger brother would have used it yet again he has a habit of doing such stupid stuff, sorry for the inconvenience and wiki-policy violation. But i can assure you it wasn't me, i have done some serious contributions to Wikipedia for past 5 years and getting blocked indefinitely for something i didn't do is really upsetting. Can you review your block decision I'll certainly make sure no one violates Wiki-policies from my account, on the contrary to all this i wasn't really involved guess i should change my account password to stop this from happening again. My apologizes! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Decline reason: I'm declining this for several reasons; firstly, the block reason is "Long term abuse", indicating that there is not a single edit for which you were blocked, but rather a history of disruption, which your rather lengthy block log supports. Secondly, we tend not to believe the "it was my little brother" excuse as we have no way to tell whose hands are actually on the keyboard; this is your account, therefore you are responsible for its actions. Thirdly, if you are telling the truth and your brother has used your account on more than one occasion, then your account is compromised and must remain blocked permanently for security and copyright reasons. Fourthly, if you did make these edits yourself, I have no confidence whatsoever that you will not do so again if you are unblocked. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. You might want to use the {{unblock}} template for your unblock request; otherwise it might go unnoticed. Yours, Huon (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks for letting me know, have been inactive for a longtime! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Unsolicitied block review I saw the block and decided to see if it was warranted. I looked at the edit link above, and agree it was quite inappropriate. It fails for several reasons: You tagged it as minor, and it most certainly is not a minor edit You provided no edit summary for your change You provided no reliable source to support your change You changed from numbers that are supported by a reliable source It is not uncommon that reliable sources disagree, but when that happens, you do not simply make a change, you go to the talk page, present both sources, and explain why one is better than the other. You obviously have an interest in contributing to the encyclopedia, and I hope you will be able to do so, but there needs to be some acknowledgment of the problem and a plan to resolve it. --SPhilbrickT 18:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Membership of the Counter-Vandalism Unit As you may know, the Counter-Vandalism unit is inactive. So for reviving the WikiProject, we will need to sort out the members. So if you are active, please put your username at the bottom of the list at Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit#Sort out the members. You are receiving this message as a current member of the CVU. Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Counter-Vandalism Unit at 00:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC). Redirected here from User talk:Paki90. Orphaned non-free media (File:Wsu vertical color web.jpg) Thanks for uploading File:Wsu vertical color web.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC) ==Image relevance in question== Important: Read → WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE ← See File:Tail wings of Pakistani army's Puma 330s.jpg, I'd strongly suggest that you reguest for it to be deleted as it is very hard to discern which are the French-built Aérospatiale SA 330 Pumas and which are the Romanian-built IAR 330. Let's not forget that the same fin flash was used throughout, which without the actual stencils/markings of the individual service (found usually on the fuselage sides) being photographed, makes it even harder to tell them apart. To make matters worse, you have a sore thumb sticking up in the middle, which is in the form of an unknown tailboom (serial no. 4321), thus making your photo looking rather confusing, silly and not to mention... awkwardly named/captioned. Other than that, no harm done. Regards. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 20:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC) Invitation to WLM! Wiki Loves Monuments - Pakistan Wiki Loves Monuments comes to Pakistan! Hi SyedNaqvi90! WLM is the largest international photographic competition in the world and we are looking forward to expanding it to Pakistan this year. We have been planning to make this national competition really take off; but to do so, we need your help! Sign up at Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in Pakistan and our mailing list if you are interested in being part of the organising team or can help spread the word. We look forward to hearing from you! Official website of WLM Pakistan You are receiving this message because you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan. This message was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

SyedNaqvi90 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello Admin, I would like to request a unblock of my profile, since I would like to make some changes on my profile page, kindly consider it, thank you!

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Kuru (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Pakistan User Group

Wikimedia Community User Group Pakistan
	Hi SyedNaqvi90! We are currently in the process of establishing a User Group for Pakistani Wikimedians with the following objectives; act as a hub for Pakistani editors working across the Wikimedia projects, act as a voice and representative for the Pakistani Wikimedian community, organize meet-ups, establish a Wikimedia Pakistan Chapter, acquire funding for various on-wiki and off-wiki activities including photo competitions, workshops and other public outreach events, and collaborate with the wider Wikimedia community. As an approved User Group, we will be recognised by the Wikimedia Foundation and officially supported by the Wikimedia movement. If you reside in Pakistan or actively work on Pakistan-related topics and can help in functional activities of the Pakistani User Group, please join the official planning group mailing list. For more details about the proposed user group, please visit the official page at http://pk.wikimedia.org. Together we can promote free knowledge in Pakistan!

You are receiving this message because you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan. This message was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:4 Babar Curise Missiles on a Truck at IDEAS 2008.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments - Pakistan

Hi SyedNaqvi90!

Wiki Loves Monuments, the world's largest photography competition, will be taking place in Pakistan this September. The competition is all about capturing the cultural monuments and heritage sites of Pakistan and uploading these images on Commons to create an online repository which will be freely available to all.

Start taking photos of the sites enlisted here and upload them in September to be eligible for national and international prizes.

Email: contact@wikilovesmonuments.pk
Official website: wikilovesmonuments.pk
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WikiLovesMonumentsPK

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Pakistan

Pakistani Cultural Heritage - Edit Drive

Hi SyedNaqvi90!

Wikimedia Community User Group Pakistan is organizing an edit drive for Pakistani Wikipedians on Pakistani Cultural Heritage throughout the month of July.
Top three contributors will be given a gift pack containing Wikipedia merchandise.

You can read the event details here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
You are receiving this message as a member of WikiProject Pakistan