Jump to content

User talk:Wikireader41

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk | contribs) at 07:30, 5 March 2009 (→‎WP:CHILL: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Welcome...

Hello, Wikireader41, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Marek.69 talk 01:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

welcome again

Hello, Wikireader41! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 16:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

My Sandbox

/Sandbox

User:Algebraic123

Could be a sock of User:Nadirali.Ontopofcosts (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nice try look at his edit history and compare to mine no correlation however you sound very much like User:KashmirCloud —Preceding unsigned comment added by Algebraic123 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Kashmir conflict appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. —Snigbrook 13:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kashmir conflict. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Toddst1 (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring and POV pushing on kashmir conflict article. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Ruslik (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1172

I have nominated United Nations Security Council Resolution 1172, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Nations Security Council Resolution 1172. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. dougweller (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

looks like you guys decided to keep the article. in this resolution UN dropped the demand for plebiscite which is why I think it is important.(Wikireader41 (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

utcursch | talk 03:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1998 Prankote massacre

1998 Prankote massacre seems a more sensible title. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanx for fixing it Wikireader41 (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on articles related to the Kashmir Conflict, buddy. utcursch | talk 03:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Rather than waste your energy on digging up hindu radical RSS/BJP funded websites maybe add some proper valid sites to your botched up new page 86.162.67.153 (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

anger

ooooh getting angry now my bharati giddar penchaud baghvan kura india stops killing its minoritys or in english i hope hanuman has had his bananas 86.162.67.153 (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindutva#cite_note-28

something you must love to read all day long in your american hideout 86.162.67.153 (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86.162.67.153

Yes, 86.162.67.153 is Algebraic123. I've now blocked the IP for one week. I must warn you that some of your comments are bordering on violations of our civility and personal attack policy. In the future, I recommend you not antagonize editors who have no serious interest in contributing to Wikipedia in a positive manner. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 07:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With love from the freedom fighters

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_autonomist_and_secessionist_movements#India 86.158.178.205 (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Pak War of '65

Hi there Wikireader41 and thanks for your note. I removed the article because I had (still have) apprehensions about the neutrality of the source. The article may be from TIME, a decidedly unbiased source, however the tone of this article, along with the recurring uses of phrases like "Red China" throughout this article cast the writer's ability to construct a credibly neutral article in poor light. It would be ok to rephrase this reference in the Wikipedia article by saying something like "...in the opinion of one commentator on TIME, Pakistan was severely...". However, I don't think this serves any purpose. On Wikipedia, we should just stick to presenting factual, quantifiable data, and let the readers make their own interpretation. I ask that you remove this reference from the article. Thanks AreJay (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes, it's no doubt that Pakistan's primary goal of liberating Kashmir was not achieved. The question, however, isn't whether Pakistan won or lost the war. My issue is with the verbiage used in the text, which seems anything but based on facts. On Wikipedia, we evaluate reliable sources (WP:RS), not by the name of the publisher, but by the actual content of the source. Most neutral sources indicate that India lost about 3,000 soldiers, and Pakistan 3,800. India lost more aircraft than did Pakistan and the IAF was not in a position to establish air superiority during the war. In fact, Pakistan's pride "1 Armoured Division" advanced 15 miles into Indian territory before being defeated at Asal Uttar. All these facts show that the war was a lot closer than this article appears to indicate. It can therefore not be passed off as a credible source. If you still believe in its credibility, I suggest we move this discussion to the article's talk page, where other contributors can also comment on the issue. Thanks AreJay (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments to Rashtra

Rashtra has been blocked. If you continue your personal attacks and incivility toward any editor – even Nangparbat – you will be blocked. Consider this your only warning. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHILL

Hi! Please keep in mind, Nanga and other banned ips will try to troll you from time to time. Keep your cool. WP:Don't feed trolls is a policy to go by. Don't give into them and get yourself blocked by replying. Its human nature, but try to keep restraint. Remember Gandhism. Wikipedia needs more editors like you who follow WP:NPOV. But by giving into trolls and attacking them personally (see WP:NPA).. you may get yourself blocked! Happy eding! Cheers! --KnowledgeHegemony talk 07:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikireader41&oldid=275120667"