User talk:K.Khokhar

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) 20:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with wikireader

British Pakistani another pov pusher this time indian american has made it his life mission to deface pakistanis everywhere covertly adding original research to degrade pakistanis calling them terrorists and poor amongst others i urge you to delete all his trash and beware hes being backed by a indian admin by the name of nishkid its a solid nexus of indian vandals which needs to be broken cheers. Also if you take a look at the article it states that bengalis suffer the most from low incomes but the article British Bengalis is absent of any mention of this low income statistic its clear that this indian is singling out pakistanis what makes it worse is that admins of hindu origin are also siding with him take a look at the diffs [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] i also gave him a taste of his medicine by adding info on the British Indian article about the scourge of indian cultural caste system which irked both the vandal and his admin supporter they both changed the edit stating they are "cleaning it up" to make the issue look less of problem and immediately added that indians are rich above it in the new economic status sub heading self comforting indian propaganda lol well lets hope india reduces its poverty rate back home instead of abroad lol maybe lakshmi mittal can provide homes for the slumdogs in mumbai lol ;-) 86.158.235.93 (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is quite a large problem with this kind of POV against Pakistanis and quite often also against Islam by some users, a lot of the time the 'vandalism' is by Indians. This was also one of the reasons why the British Pakistani page was originally started as the British Asian page was constantly vandalised. The pov pushers had a lot of support, I suppose they have a large enough population. Most of them refuse to understand reason and so it's only a mater of time before they get banned, I also notice the editor 'nishkid' has started trying to stop wikireader's pov attitude somewhat. Thanks for the links, I will try to go through them and fix as much as I can. Khokhar (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Please try as i fear more and more pov pushers are gaining confidence by the action of the Indian vandal yellowmonkey is also now showing pakistaniphobias they wont even let me edit about british indians and there social issues so its clear that respected editors like nishkid are actively supporting vandals giving warnings doesnt work he needs to be banned 81.151.100.127 (talk) 09:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nishkid64&diff=prev&oldid=286598536 this link shows you than wikireader has already got fans also a indian monkey 81.151.100.127 (talk) 09:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

More evidence of racist vandalism

[9] this diff shows the vandal changing an already referenced source and adding pro India bias and in the pakistan view section to purposely push a pro India stance. Now second diff he removed this sentence because he was offended by it [10] [11] this diff shows him adding pathetic islamophobic edit trying to portray Pakistan as militant. More trash [12] [13] him stating that jihad is a duty of Muslims in Pakistan so that’s why the whole Kashmir issue formed now [14] this shows his obvious pov view of Pakistan. These diffs are the evidence of a very strong pov [15] now look at him changing his first pov edit into a even more obvious pov edit [16] now second modification to satisfy his hunger for pov [17] and heres sweet little addition by wikivandal [18] now look at him/her attacking Pakistanis over here [19] Dont worry about wikivandal41 its up to you who you talk to and by the way indian admins have been backing his racist edits for a long time you could add some more info on the British Indian article? or Indian American heres a source showing they (Indians) are now the biggest illegal alien population in America maybe this addition would cool down the hothead wikivandal41 p.s indian admins may give you trouble such as Nishkid, Yellowmonkey and greyanomoly but you have a right to remove biased trash from trashy editors who are only on wikipedia to just push there pro india garbage cheers brother 86.158.176.222 (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/indian_immigration.html heres the source for the indian illegal aliens this must be added it is important I forgot to add it to the previous comment sorry :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.176.222 (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

you are being asked by a banned user nangparbat to edit on his behalf. here is some info you might want to go over first.

Nangparbat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nangparbat

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nangparbat/Archive

AKA

Algebraic123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

AKA

Jailstorm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

AKA

Rashtra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

also you might find this info about a wiki policy useful

Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users

Have a good day. Cheers . Thank you Wikireader41 (talk) 02:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

He can edit what ever he wants now get lost indian pov pushers 86.162.66.211 (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Direct Action Day

Thanks for your posting in the talk page of the above mentioned article. Please see the reply. Also, please go through the sources mentioned in the article (some of them are available online, fortunately).

And also, if you have any reliable source presenting/enforcing your point of view, please cite them. As for now, the article just relates whatever the sources tell, there is nothing made up. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I will try to reply to the article shortly. Please note that I am not trying to enforce a point of view, rather trying to keep the article balanced and accurate.Khokhar (talk) 07:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, the article should be balanced. the article states that Hindu mobs were as prepared and as brutal as Muslim mobs, because the sources say so. Both sides were ready for violence, true. But the question is, why both sides were ready? Because they expected it. And why the expectation? Because of the instigation from the League leaders (not necessarily Jinnah, but rather others such as Suhrawardy, Nizamuddin, newspaper propaganda etc). You have precisely summarised that there were tit for tat attacks in politically charged environment. But why it started? Because of the ambiguity in defining what direct action meant, letting the mob decide what direct action meant, preparing for violence (and retaliatory preparing for violence - no one would sit tight when one sees the other side is preparing), inflammatory propaganda by some leaders, not controlling the riot, rather obstructing the police (which Suhrawardy did) - all these combined. That's what the sources says. Add with that some equally inflammatory Hindu radicals, who made sure their hindu mobs were equally prepared. result - the cruel blood-letting. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

My reply here [20]Khokhar (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet possibility

If you, by the way, turn out to be a sock puppet of banned user user:Xn4 (since you seem to have similar obsessions), you'll be instantly banned from Wikipedia. This is not to imply in the least that you are a sockpuppet, but simply to inform you of the penalties that await in case you are. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What gives you the right to accuse me of being a 'sockpuppet', just because I don't agree with you??? try reading some of the stuff I have changed including the reasons.. or is that too much for your pov??Khokhar (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

my apologies if I sounded rude but you don't have the right to revert my edits without a shred of evidenceKhokhar (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the sockpuppet part has nothing to do with your not agreeing with me. We (a number of editors) spent over six months battling an editor user:Xn4 and his sockpuppets (user:Strawless, user:Umar Zulfikar Khan etc. etc.) on the subject of British India. Naturally, once burnt twice shy, we are being a little circumspect. True, you are probably not a sockpuppet, but our vigilance in that regard is just something we do to protect Wikipedia. It is sort of like the security checks at airports. It is not about the individual, but rather about society. So, please don't take it personally. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

One thing that raises editors' suspicions is when an editor turns up and starts making en mass changes in an effort (from his point of view) to set things right, and does that quickly. What that editor often doesn't understand is that these issues have been discussed many many times before. (Perhaps we should put a FAQ list at the top of the talk page.) In my personal opinion, you'd be better off if you create small articles and submit them for DYK and build your credentials that way. Attacking, old weather-beaten articles like Partition of India will not win you any brownie points (no matter how deeply felt your sentiment), unless you are an expert in that topic (i.e. a university professor, and even then I'm not sure.). It will more likely turn neutral people against you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. From what I've seen recently and consistently on wikipedia, the amount of anti-Pakistan/Islam bias is quite obvious and though I haven't, for the most part, taken part in such discussions, I can see the implications; hence being burnt twice and social association rings out loud here too, possibly why I reacted as I did. You may argue, as you have, that I don't have the 'credentials' to be taken seriously, well, I won't argue as you are probably right, but will just say that my 'other' edits, largely, can be taken on their own merit, if people are willing to look past my society, of course. As for neutrality, no offence intended , but when people claim to be neutral but then paint everyone with the same brush, so as to speak, by explicitly mentioning 'society' when referring to individuals and even talk of 'security at airports', it's impossible not to see the funny side, though, I am sure, the 'editors' that belong to the 'society' being mentioned probably do not see the funny side, not any more, at least. Without mentioning Freud's projection, I would say the legitimate editors from this 'society', though few and far between these days, still being here is in itself a testament to their 'tolerance'.

I, myself, have been confronted with a fair share of overtly snidey comments recently from 'Indians', here on wikipedia, so, I assume, society works both ways, still, I try not to generalise simply based on 'society' or how I am 'told' to perceive matters, especially here, in the west. however, if recent wikipedia articles are anything to go by, the word 'neutrality' loses a lot of value. I guess it's only natural that when you hear something long enough you start to believe it. However, thankfully, certain values remain resilient, even in the most turbulent of times.Khokhar (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm hardly the example of an anti-Pakistani crusader. Please look at my first three or four barnstars (at the bottom of the stack on my userpage). They were all received for defending Pakistani editors who had been unjustly accused. I agree with you that there are Indian editors who are champing at the bit to say something anti-Pakistani (even anti-Islam) on various pages. In my personal opinion, though, battling them individually is usually a waste of time. Better to build credentials first by creating a collection of small articles (of, say, DYK length) and also a peer-group of neutral editors from different countries and continents. Once in that position, it is easier to tackle problems of bias (as your peer group will weigh in as well). Good luck. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, once again, for your advice, I have read some of your edits and can see you are, indeed, sincere. A refreshing change. I will consider the course of action you recommended, however, I do not currently have the research time to undertake anything meaningful, but even then, my edits, bar a few, are generally quite spontaneous. Maybe over time. I also see you have an understanding of Urdu and appreciate the works of Iqbal, as such, and, on a lighter note, I find the following words fitting, I hope you agree.

Nishan yehi hai zamaney mian zinda qoumoN ka

K subh-o-sham badlti hain un ki taqdeerain

Kamal-e-sidq-o-murrawat hai zindgi un ki

Moaf karti hai fitrat bhi in ki taqseerain

Khokhar (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Translation of the above (rough as some words can have multiple meanings):

The mark of prosperous nations on history is as so;

That their fates change between morning and evening of each day.

Their life epitomizes doubtless faith so much so that;

Even nature forgives their shortcomings.

Khokhar (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

India vs. British India/Subcontinent

Hi. Just a quick heads up that you need to address this issue on article talk pages first. This is an oft discussed issue and attempting to make changes against the existing consensus could be construed as disruptive and could get you blocked. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 21:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, K.Khokhar. You have new messages at Pekayer11's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Pekayer11 (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou K.Khokhar

I value the significance and grace of your apology.
Although nothing that you posted,
Within the ambit of our recent debates on articles Khokhar or Ghazni .
Warranted , an apology to me.
Our exchanges if anything, according to me has improved both articles.

All information posted on wikipedia articles by committed user’s present referenced information from their perspective. Therefore I have learnt to recognize, that completely opposing posts to mine are a natural prerogative of other registered users working on the same article. Which is why I seldom delete .

I believe that the ethnological history of some of the Punjabi clans are intrinsically linked. These include for instance the Gakhar , Khakhar ,Khokhar , Khokhrain , Mohyal , and some of the Awan , and others . This is also true of Pashtun tribes . If referenced information were not immediately deleted, without debate, many inherently and ethnologically related Punjabi and Pashtun Links would begin to crystallize. There is a Khorasan element to all of these that cuts across Muslim , Hindu/Sikh .

The problem in the debates come up invariably because there is a religious backdrop. But if the discussions can cautiously pass up the contentious discussion on merits and demerits of the religions …progress and resolution of the puzzles can be progressed , till new facts come up . This off course need not preclude engaging the contentious perspectives .

Some traditions have lasted in the Muslim sections and some in the Hindu/Sikh sections of Punjabi and Afghan people . These hidden gems can enrich clan histories for everyone .

I had resolved to break this wikipedia addiction for a month ..but now this one puff has broken it . Cheers
Intothefire (talk) 08:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi intothefire,

Thank you for your comments. I agree on most points you have raised, however, as you mentioned, there needs to be more encouragement on both sides and, of course, honest debate. I also agree that many Pashtun and Punjabi people have invariably been related over the centuries, something we can also see in the pashtun clans of north western Punjab, such as the Niazi. I'll also admit my level of knowledge regarding Khorasan is limited, I will need to research it, thank you for mentioning it. Regards.

Khokhar (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi User:K.Khokhar,
The linkages between Pushtun and Punjabi lineages are abundant
Astonishing and repungent for some(considering the velocity of deletion ) as they may seem
Not only the Niazi but many others.
I am begining to feel that it may be a better idea to only post on the talk pages because thats where it may be easier to find referenced content since the deletion habit seems not to have cought on on the talk pages
Cheers
Intothefire (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Northern Areas and Azad Kashmir

If you have recently read these pages it’s got massive chunks related to the Kashmir conflict such as in Northern Areas "Competing Territorial Claims" same with Azad Kashmir with a section containing "dispute positions" however flick over to Indian administered Kashmir page Indian-administered Kashmir and there is only a brief mention of the dispute in the introduction why should Pakistani pages contain massive chunks of disputed claims section while IOK (Jammu and Kashmir) is completely devoid of any mention of the conflict.

Taking into account that last month IOK has seen allot of pro freedom protests and sadly murder of civilians relating to Indian troops what’s your take on this situation the Kashmir conflict page covers both sides why should Pakistani Kashmir exclusively cater to another section on the conflict even though virtually all the pro freedom marches occur in IOK I am not asking you to edit just to ponder it undue weight to Pakistan is not acceptable while Jammu and Kashmir page looks like a tourist brochure I would be great full if you could at least remove all the Undue weight on the Pakistani Kashmir page or at least add the same disputed information in the Indian-administered Kashmir page 86.162.68.53 (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

South Asia

I don't know your political affiliations. I don't know about your grudges. But, I do know that the Britsh Raj was the British Raj, and it doesn't need to conform to the geographic boundaries of the Republic of India. Please, read before you revert or remove. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 19:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

My response here: [21]Khokhar (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work. Please, accept my respect. If you don't mind, would you care to lend a hand in developing the article on South Asia? It's been two very lonely editors fighting against a lot of prejudice and even more confusing information. The article really needs help. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

My response here: [22] Khokhar (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

What?

What the hell u talking about!(Dewan S. Ahsan 18:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC))

this was pretty offensive Dewan. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Note

Please do not post incidents in multiple forums. Although various locations exist in order to resolve situations, it is best to choose the correct location once, and allow all discussion to take place there. Although you may be directed to another forum by admins or other moderators, you will at least be directed to the best forum. Thank you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have removed the complaint from a forum as it has been acknowledged on another forum. Regards. Khokhar (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Seriously though ... WP:WQA, WP:AIV (possibly wrong forum), WP:LTA (also wrong forum) and WP:ANI ...anywhere else we should know about? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least I removed it from one -_- Khokhar (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI Reports about other users

Please note - you are required to notify editors when you post about them on WP:ANI - you may use {{subst:ani}} to do so. I have notified Dewan357 for you. Exxolon (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I'll make sure I do in the future. Regards. Khokhar (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

K2

I tried my best but Indian pov pushing admin nishkid restored the POV version he also supports Hkelkar another Indian troll oh well maybe next time 86.158.237.220 (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Article Khokhar

You have done some excellent work there, particularly highlighting the Muslim Khkhar side of things with references. I am interested in some Sikh figures that were Khokhar too. Perhaps you can help there too with refrences. I have added some referencing to it and also changed the heading order to reflect there are two viewpoints. One - the Hindu/Singh Kshatriya and the other Muslim Khokhar. All very interesting and I am enjoying finding out so much about this tribe.--Sikh-History 15:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I would be glad to spend research time finding the Sikh elements of the Khokhar tribe, in fact I have tried to do so in the past but referenced material is hard to come by, also I ave reverted some of your edits in the article and explained why in each instance. I have also left a message on your talk page highliting the disruptive edits by User:Information-Line on the punjabi people and other articles and have included you in the comments as I assumed, understandably, you were editing the Khokhar article (on which I have spent many hours researching and maintaining) due to User:Information-Line's insistance, my apologies if I assumed wrong. Khokhar (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Khokhar, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Also you are in breach of the 3RR rule Sikh-History 16:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)