Jump to content

User talk:Wikireader41: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,553,283 edits
m Dating comment by Kashmirspeaks - "timeline"
Warning: Potentially violating the three revert rule on Kanwar Pal Singh Gill‎‎. (TW)
Line 240: Line 240:
==Kashmir conflict Timeline==
==Kashmir conflict Timeline==
I feel then this should be restricted to few things like wars, CBM's, Indo-Pak, Indo-Kashmir and Pak-Kashmir meetings etc only. The rest of day to day affairs should be cited in the main page. What do you say? [[User:Kashmirspeaks|Kashmirspeaks]] {[[User talk:Kashmirspeaks|talk]]} <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 19:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
I feel then this should be restricted to few things like wars, CBM's, Indo-Pak, Indo-Kashmir and Pak-Kashmir meetings etc only. The rest of day to day affairs should be cited in the main page. What do you say? [[User:Kashmirspeaks|Kashmirspeaks]] {[[User talk:Kashmirspeaks|talk]]} <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 19:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== July 2009 ==
[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] You currently appear to be engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit war|edit war]]{{#if:Kanwar Pal Singh Gill‎‎|&#32; according to the reverts you have made on [[:Kanwar Pal Singh Gill‎‎]]}}. Note that the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|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 [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]]. If you continue, '''you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. If necessary, pursue [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ''I believe that was 4. Whether 3 or 4, though, Please Stop now.'' [[User:Sinneed|- sinneed]] ([[User talk:Sinneed|talk]]) 03:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:57, 16 July 2009


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]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with Admins and Nangparbat

Hey, I have noticed that that jerk has been targeting you. When dealing with admins in relation to his actions, remember to show them this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nangparbat/Archive. Only a handful of admins know the protocol for stopping Nangparbat.

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i know. but I think he is getting better known now. Thanx for your efforts anyway17:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

banned Freind of Nangparbat

Strider11 (talk · contribs) - Easy to spot, eg Teckgeek (talk · contribs) likes creating cats and lots of articles, check User:AlexNewArtBot/PakistanSearchResult a lot of his new accounts show up there. Same POV YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nangparbat

Ignore this user's edits to user talk pages. I'll deal with those myself. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK Wikireader41 (talk) 01:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

The report actually comes to generally positive conclusions about Pakistanis and Indians. And the report also states its own unreliability due to the small numbers used. I am not the only one to reach the conclusion that the sentiments you expressed in the article were incorrect and unsupported. Alan16 talk 22:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and what makes you think that I did not mean it to be a positive reflection on British Pakistanis??? This is a reliable source and the fact that the report was published and is still available on the website means their is enough merit in it if you look at it from NPOV Wikireader41 (talk) 22:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The report states that there has been a decline in the number of teenage pregnancies for Pakistanis, quote:

Pakistani women – much higher than the white average twenty years ago – showed a consistent fall over the period, and were very similar to whites in recent years.

And I believe you do not intend to be positive because you failed to mention in your statement on the British Pakistanis article that Pakistanis are praised for having almost all child births in marriage whereas for whites it is almost half. Alan16 talk 23:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
feel free to mention both those points. i do not see any issues with it. the fact still remains that they had the among the highest teenage birth rate and even though it has been falling recently. Looks like some degree of assimilation is taking place. i am sure lot of people would take issue with a statement that praised child births within a a marriage especially if you are implying heterosexual marriage. Wikireader41 (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so you think having a child when a single parent is better? And read the quote, The pregnancy rating is basically identical to white people. So the comment is wrong. Alan16 talk 00:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I prsonally dont. but many people think it does not impact children in any negative way. perhaps thats why this practice is relatively common in the west. have you looked at Table 2. also do not turn a blind eye to 'Key Points'

-A method of estimating age-specific fertility rates from cross-sectional surveys of households has proved reliable.

-About 30 white teenagers have a baby, out of every 1,000 at risk.

- Teenage motherhood is more common among Caribbean, Pakistani and, especially, Bangladeshi women than among white women.- But young Indian women are less likely than whites to have a baby before they are 20.- Many white and most Caribbean teenage mothers are unmarried; but the majority of births to teenagers of South Asian origin are within marriage .

-The rates of teenage births among white and Caribbean women are stable, but there has been a marked decline in early parenthood in South Asian communities in Britain.

have a good day. 00:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply (II)

The IP address is not blocked, so I worked under the assumption that they could edit under the Wikipedia policy Anybody can edit. I have never came into contact with Nangparbat, and know nothing about him. I have broken no rules, and will continue to edit without breaking rules. Keep your attacks and POV to yourself. All my edits to these controversial topics are sourced. Alan16 talk 23:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

see my response on your talk page alan. best wishes Wikireader41 (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Making sockpuppet accusations on talk pages isn't right:[1]. Open an investigation instead, please. Fences and windows (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nangparbat

There's no point in leaving warnings on his user talk pages (he's just going to edit war over them using other IPs). Just report him on my talk and I'll deal with the user. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OKWikireader41 (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 23:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nangparbat

Dealt with. CAn't believe there's so much hagiography Wikipedia:Featured article review/Pakistan. REads like a govt advert. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ThanxWikireader41 (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yousaf465-llike editor

Adil your (talk · contribs) YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently he was not a sock :( Another troublemaker to deal with YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job(s). South Asian Terrorism Portal and Ajai Sahni :)

Thank you for your work, very much. I have very much enjoyed working with you, and hope we do so again, and that we get to agree more than we disagree, and find common ground where we can't. All the best.- sinneed (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fyi

User:MoRsE, if I understand him correctly, is asserting that you agree with his move. User_talk:MoRsE#Could_you_please_discuss... As you can see from my questions to him, I do not agree with his move.

He said he believes his behavior is consistent with the wikipedia's policies. I am troubled by this. I do not regard his behavior as compliant with the obligations on all of us to behave accountably, and to try to give civil meaningful answers to civil questions.

Has your interest in the name of the article survived?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am troubled too. I do not know if you realize that I am the original author who started this article. A major part of the article has been contributed by me. So yes my interest in the article is very much alive no matter what the title is. I think we should continue the debate and revert the name back as soon as we have consensus ;-). Cheers. Wikireader41 (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't know that.
How would you feel about a name halfway between? Instead of:
Something like:
Of all these I prefer your original choice. If you agree to this, do you think we should yield on the "Unauthorized" part?
I started an article originally entitled Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism.
A different uninvolved administrator strolled by and unilaterally moved it to the current name: Tablighi Jamaat and allegations of terrorism. They claimed: "more appropriate name". Someone else came along and tried to rename it to Tablighi Jamaat and allegations of terrorism by U.S intelligence. Both the passing administrator's name, and the other guy's suggested name suffer from being ambiguous. They are open to the interpretation that TJ is the target of alleged terrorist acts, not the alleged actor.
A former administrator, and vile vandal and sockpuppet, User:KI moved Charities_accused_of_ties_to_terrorism to Charities with ties to terrorism. He is the only person to file an {{rfc}} on me.
At WP:Requested moves there are tools for polls. Have you ever initiated one? We could initiate a poll on the original name, but I think one of the compromise names is more likely to succeed. Proponent of the most recent name say our preferred choice is POV. And we think theirs is POV. So I think our poll should rule out both names.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think those are reasonable. but we need to discuss this on article talk pageWikireader41 (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KPS Gill

It's like trying to arm-wrestle octopi. :) I have people on both sides "He is great! Yay!" and "He is a fiend! Boo!". Thanks for the support. Much appreciated. :) - sinneed (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It actually isn't the POV pushers that bother me. It is the other editors (and most especially admins) that assume that if you oppose a POV push that you have a POV. I have written a very early (less than 1st) draft of what I hope will be an essay on that problem. ;)- sinneed (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neat about Gill. Ah, neutrality...we are humans, we can only strive for neutrality... if nothing else our societies, languages and training filter our view of the world. Best of luck to you. If this is a holiday weekend for you, have a happy one... and if not have a great weekend anyway! :)- sinneed (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir conflict Timeline

I feel then this should be restricted to few things like wars, CBM's, Indo-Pak, Indo-Kashmir and Pak-Kashmir meetings etc only. The rest of day to day affairs should be cited in the main page. What do you say? Kashmirspeaks {talk} —Preceding undated comment added 19:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

July 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kanwar Pal Singh Gill‎‎. 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. I believe that was 4. Whether 3 or 4, though, Please Stop now. - sinneed (talk) 03:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikireader41&oldid=302354549"