Article is still disputed Several sections of this article added by ISKapoo Vikramsingh were regularly removedcensored by ITAQALLAH and othersThis article is still in dispute please do not remove the tag until all the disputes involving this article are resolvedIf you wish to know what is in dispute read the talk page You will find a very long discussion there are realize that the recent inactivity was due to several persons including ISKapoo  Vikramsingh giving up any hope of maintaining a balanced viewpoint due to the constant censorship of ITAQALLAH and others  Are you sure you understand the tags youve put up There is clearly no controversial or unsourced content in the article that  alludes to This looks more like a heap of tags just to say you dont like the article as it stands Neither you nor your colleagues have given any detailed reason why the removal of crankish poorly sourced fringe material contravenes WPNPOV and how the material isnt in violation of WPBLP whereas I have shown it is  Please stop vandalizing this article by removing the tags Your behavior has become a burden on most wikipedians    Please demonstrate that you understand the issues at hand and are not merely placing tags so as to register your personal grievances with the page You can do so by actually explaining how the tags are justified and how the fringe material removed doesnt violate core content policies  UserAgnistus has claimed the neutrality of this article is disputed That is legitimate Now Id like to now what is it in the article that Agnistis finds to be a violation of WPPOV I advise Itaqallah to give the user 24 hours or the next time he signs on whichever is earlier to produce hisher reasons for placing the tag Thank you Agnistus for your anticipated cooperation  Dear  you do not know that the article is disputed crankish poorly sourced fringe material  The statements by Zakir Naik on the rights on nonmuslims were properly sourced material of much importance to the articleto maintain a balanced viewpoint You have repeatedly and continously indulged in deletion of this material Your actions have constituted a blatant violation of WPBLP Read the 50page long talk page and you will understand the reasons for the disputed status You are probably blind to this gross censorship since you yourself were the censor Until and unless a fully balanced viewpoint is presented ofcourse in compliance with WPBLP in the article the tag cannot be removed BTW   there is absolutely no necessity for a 24hour window as it is perfectly clear to any NonIslamic fundamentalist from the talk page that this article is totally disputed And if you ITAQALLAH still feel the material that you censored was crankish poorly sourced fringe material then please visit   and please read the articles on Zakir Naik in   and     Agnistus I can only gather from your response that you have little basis in policy for inserting your tendentious unreliable material or what amounts to a pointish protest tag Youtubecom isnt a reliable source wikiislam and faithfreedomorg are unreliable polemical websites which cannot be considered as reliable sources on any topic let alone a living person Perhaps you have missed WikipediaBiographies of living personsCriticism and praise WPRS WPV but your objection seems to be that your own personal perspective is not copiously represented  Could you please tell me how videos of Zakir Naik on Youtubecom are not reliable Do you think some video artist carefully crafted those videos and put it up there Only

    ####Prompt- Does the next message are offensives ? reply with a JSON object (without carriage return or new lines)
    with keys :
    isoffensive (True if it's offensive).
    This this the message : 
Article is still disputed Several sections of this article added by ISKapoo Vikramsingh were regularly removedcensored by ITAQALLAH and othersThis article is still in dispute please do not remove the tag until all the disputes involving this article are resolvedIf you wish to know what is in dispute read the talk page You will find a very long discussion there are realize that the recent inactivity was due to several persons including ISKapoo  Vikramsingh giving up any hope of maintaining a balanced viewpoint due to the constant censorship of ITAQALLAH and others  Are you sure you understand the tags youve put up There is clearly no controversial or unsourced content in the article that  alludes to This looks more like a heap of tags just to say you dont like the article as it stands Neither you nor your colleagues have given any detailed reason why the removal of crankish poorly sourced fringe material contravenes WPNPOV and how the material isnt in violation of WPBLP whereas I have shown it is  Please stop vandalizing this article by removing the tags Your behavior has become a burden on most wikipedians    Please demonstrate that you understand the issues at hand and are not merely placing tags so as to register your personal grievances with the page You can do so by actually explaining how the tags are justified and how the fringe material removed doesnt violate core content policies  UserAgnistus has claimed the neutrality of this article is disputed That is legitimate Now Id like to now what is it in the article that Agnistis finds to be a violation of WPPOV I advise Itaqallah to give the user 24 hours or the next time he signs on whichever is earlier to produce hisher reasons for placing the tag Thank you Agnistus for your anticipated cooperation  Dear  you do not know that the article is disputed crankish poorly sourced fringe material  The statements by Zakir Naik on the rights on nonmuslims were properly sourced material of much importance to the articleto maintain a balanced viewpoint You have repeatedly and continously indulged in deletion of this material Your actions have constituted a blatant violation of WPBLP Read the 50page long talk page and you will understand the reasons for the disputed status You are probably blind to this gross censorship since you yourself were the censor Until and unless a fully balanced viewpoint is presented ofcourse in compliance with WPBLP in the article the tag cannot be removed BTW   there is absolutely no necessity for a 24hour window as it is perfectly clear to any NonIslamic fundamentalist from the talk page that this article is totally disputed And if you ITAQALLAH still feel the material that you censored was crankish poorly sourced fringe material then please visit   and please read the articles on Zakir Naik in   and     Agnistus I can only gather from your response that you have little basis in policy for inserting your tendentious unreliable material or what amounts to a pointish protest tag Youtubecom isnt a reliable source wikiislam and faithfreedomorg are unreliable polemical websites which cannot be considered as reliable sources on any topic let alone a living person Perhaps you have missed WikipediaBiographies of living personsCriticism and praise WPRS WPV but your objection seems to be that your own personal perspective is not copiously represented  Could you please tell me how videos of Zakir Naik on Youtubecom are not reliable Do you think some video artist carefully crafted those videos and put it up there Only

