User talk:Jrkso

October 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to 28 October 2009 Peshawar bombing, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. '''yousaf465'  05:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well Jrkso I also now it was meant for poor people, but no source say so. I think you didn't read the welcome msg carefully.-- '''yousaf465'  07:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say the bombing was meant for poor people. I'm saying that the Mina Bazaar in Peshawar is a general shopping place for the low income people. The Rich people of Peshawar do not shop there, mostly the poors do. I think this is very important to mention so readers understand a little about this bazaar, where the bombing incident took place.--Jrkso (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Jrkso; I really appreciate your desire to improve Wikipedia. However, everything must be verified; an allegation like that, even if it seems like common sense, needs to have a source. So far, sources have only said it's female-exclusive, nothing else.
 * Also, I removed the bit about winter shopping; only one woman was stated to be doing so for sure. We can't assume that they all were as a result. Please don't re-add it unless you have a better source. Thank you, Master of Puppets  21:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Jrkso; I think now you have understood. I was also refering to the Meena Bazaar.-- '''yousaf465'  02:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Master of Puppets, I have to find a source explaining that it's the start of winter in Peshawar, Pakistan, and add that to the article? Is this the rule of Wikipedia? Also, do I have to get a source for each person who died explaining they were doing winter shopping? This is ridiculous!--Jrkso (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No, but just because it's the start of winter doesn't mean everybody is doing their winter shopping - avoid making such assumptions if you don't have sources. And not exactly, but you'd have to have a source stating that a majority or so were doing said type of shopping; otherwise it's original research. Master of Puppets 03:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you making up your own rules? I've provided a reliable source (Karen DeYoung and Haq Nawaz Khan of The Washington Post) which indicated that women were doing winter shopping.''At Lady Reading Hospital, a student named Ahmed Jan, 25, said a relative of his had been killed in the bombing. He said she was a teacher who had gone to the market to buy winter clothes for her two children. People do winter shopping before the cold winter weather begins, usually one month in advance, and in the case of Peshawar the cold season starts now. You probably live in India where you don't see winter, but in many places of the world people know what winter shopping means. Why did you remove the source? Why don't you use the talk page instead of removing information from articles? This isn't good.--Jrkso (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at your quote again; they're talking about one teacher. One teacher buying winter clothes does not mean everybody there is doing the same thing.
 * As for the talk page; there's no need to use the talk page here, because this is something that we have many policies against. Even though I know that what you're saying is probably true, and you know what you're saying is true, there's no way to verify it (unless you have a source that explicitly states that now is when everybody does their winter shopping in Peshawar). See also Original research. Cheers, Master of Puppets  03:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Who do you want to verify this to? You want to verify with sources that it's the start of winter in Peshawar? Or that people in Peshawar go to markets to shop there? Again, this is very ridiculous. I know what OR is. The fact is I've provided a very reliable source (above) clearly mentioning that women were doing winter shopping and even you agreed. So what's the problem then? Why are you so much against this? It's also very ridiculous to ask for about 100 sources, each one mentioning each victim what they were shopping. The information I've added said "majority of the victims were women and children doing winter shopping". All the sources say the site of the blast was an exclusive-for-women shopping area. The sources also say majority of the victims were women and children. So why are you bringing this No original research to me?--Jrkso (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, let's go over this again. Just because one woman was doing her winter shopping does not mean that they all were. Yes, casualties were mostly women and children. Yes, it is the start of winter in Peshawar. Does that mean that they were all doing winter shopping? No. That's a link you can't draw without a credible source, or else it's original research. Trust me, this is exactly how policy is supposed to work.
 * Hopefully that makes sense! Cheers, Master of Puppets  20:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody said all the people were doing winter shopping. You want me to write in the article that one single woman was doing her winter shopping? Just because you are an administrator doesn't mean you're always right? You are again removing sourced information after I told you to please stop. What is your problem?--Jrkso (talk) 01:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is kinda weird. You're agreeing with me, but I don't think you know yet.
 * You mentioned exactly what I don't want; for you to mention that she's doing her winter shopping. Even if the sources mentioned that, that's not very important. However, writing that even some of them were doing the same thing is, again, original research.
 * That being said, I'm OK with the most recent version, as you're clearly specifying there's only one person acting in the stated manner. Now, readers can draw the connection themselves. Thank you for correcting it! Cheers, Master of Puppets  03:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think now you understand my intention, I only wanted readers to get a little idea that it was sort of a busy time, more shoppers than usual due to the coming of winter season. Thanks for helping.--Jrkso (talk) 07:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem! I'm sorry that we misunderstood each other for a time; I am pretty confusing sometimes. All is well now, though. Cheers! Master of Puppets  07:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Xlinkbot
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Zabiullah Mujahid has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCptFrPZZG0 (matching the regex rule \byoutube\.com). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. Video links are also strongly deprecated by our guidelines for external links, partly because they're useless to people with slow internet connections. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion on Afghanistan
FYI -

I just formally asked for a third opinion on the Afghanisan article.

Thanks,

Danieldis47 (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

War in Afghanistan 2001–present
Your views on the latest draft for the section Afghanistan would be valuable. The discussion is atTalk:Afghanistan--Work permit (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Afghanistan
You might like to contribute to this : Talk:Afghanistan

I'm not strongly invested either way, but I do feel it makes some sort of sense to have the section title match the article it links to as Main Article:  Begoon  talk  00:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right about that but the main article "War in Afghanistan 2001-present" can be re-named, and I think we may do that as well. The militaries involved in this country call it "NATO mission", and you can see that in many news reports. It started as a mission although the US leaders called it "War on Terror" but the war on terror was not intended for Afghanistan, it was a global war. The Afghan situation is a mission, to defend the nation from militants (criminals) and help rebuild its institutions and provide aid, and etc. When you call this "war" then it ignores all the other things that NATO is doing but only concentrate on the fighting between Taliban militants and NATO forces.--Jrkso (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I answered on the article talk page - seems we agree :)  Begoon  talk  01:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Afghanistan
I am stop here as your constant edit warring is disruptive and i will be soon offline so i left a message here IQinn (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Afghanistan: Demographics
Hi, I just wanted to notify you that you are in fact falsifying sources. 3 sources are given which put the number of Tajiks at 30-40% (one of them is the authoritative Encyclopaedia Iranica which puts the number at 33.7%). The list gives the minimum and the maximum numbers. Please revert your latest change. Thank you.

Your edit is negating and falsifying these 3 sources. Tajik (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You are quoting selectively. For example, while on one hand, you constantly claim that the Encyclopedia Iranica has "old numbers" and hence "is not reliable", on the other hand, you solely quote Iranica when you like the message. When Iranica puts the number of Tajiks at 34% you claim it is "old and wrong". But you have no problems to quote exactly the same source when it claims that Pashto is the mother-tongue of 55%. That is WP:POV at its worst. You also delete whatever source you do not like. Currently, I am very busy. But once I have finished my work, I will get back to those articles you have distorted and clean everything up. Iranica is an authoritative source and should be used as such. But that means that it is authoritative in EVERY section and not only in places where you like the message. Tajik (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The Encyclopedia Iranica does not mention Tajiks 34%, I don't see where this is mentioend. It lists incomplete numbers and I cited a source which gives the complete numbers. I've done reading many works in the area but no reliable source exists for Tajiks being 34% or even beyond 27%. Pashto being the mother-tongue of 55% and Persian of 25% is what Encyclopedia Iranica states and even you say Iranica is an authoritative source. A. Official languages. Paṧtō (1) is the native tongue of 50 to 55 percent of Afghans... Persian (2) is the language most spoken in Afghanistan. The native tongue of twenty five percent of the population. If you believe this estimate is wrong you going to have to bring a reliable source which says it is. This link has lots of info on the languages spoken in Afghanistan.<> http://www.ethnologue.com/14/show_country.asp?name=Afghanistan<>--Jrkso (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have explained it to you 3 times and I will explain it to you a fourth time, hoping that you finally manage to understand: the 33.7% is the EQUIVALENT of the numbers given in Iranica. If you take the numbers presented it Iranica, you can CALCULATE the percentage. The math was cecked by admin User:Kingturtle 2 years ago. If you do not know the math or if you do not trust me, feel free to ask the admins. Iranica is an authoritative source and as such needs to be quoted accordingly. That means: you HAVE to state that numbers are from 30 years ago, that it puts the number of Pashto-speakers somewhere between 50-55% and that it puts the percentage of Tajiks at 33.7% (or 3,500,000 at that time). Your list is also unencyclopedic because you throw in a bunch of different claims and estimates from different and unrelated sources. The best and most neutral (and hence most encyclopedic) way is to list each source and each poll separately. The claim that Pashto is spoken by 55% was made 30 years ago. While you criticize the number of Tajiks (3,500,000 = 33.7%) for being old, you use exactly the same source and the same old numbers to provide the 55% with a source. That is POV, not because you use Iranica, but because you use it selectively and in a very unencyclopedic way! As for the newst representative polls: they should be mentioned in the text, but with a specific note that they are just the results of recent polls which included some 2000 random individuals. The text should also contain the note that ALL other sources are mere guesses and estimates and that the Iranica numbers are from 30 years ago. As for percentages regarding the languages of Afghanistan, here is a recent and excellent map by Columbia University from 2010! According to this source, the majority (= more than 50%) speaks Persian as first language and at least 20% of Pashtuns also speak a Persian dialect as their first language. Tajik (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * These details you want to explain can be put in the Languages of Afghanistan and Ethnic groups in Afghanistan (new article should be created). As for the language edits I made, I couldn't find the maximum estimate for Persian (Dari) so I left it at 50%. I fixed the dates as you suggested, as for the Iranica ethnic distribution see my answer at Talk:Afghanistan--Jrkso (talk) 00:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The entire list you have made is unencyclopedic and unscientific. You throw in and mix different numbers from different sources and different years/decades. That is false and misleading. You should list each source separately. You cannot use the numbers of Iranica from 30 years ago, the numbers of the CIA factbook which have not changed since 2001, and some other source as if they are the same thing. I have no idea what you have changed the original version which was encyclopedic, neutral, and presented and described each source and each poll separately. The numbers added up to 100% (unlike your list) and the year of the poll was named directly in the list. Tajik (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your effort. The article looks a little bit better now. But we should keep the tags for a while. Regards. Tajik (talk) 10:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a note
Please stop accusing me of using sockpuppets. If you have any problems, please ask admins for a checkuser file. I have no problems with it. And you should not accuse others of POV-pushing while your own edits are highly controversial and seem to be of Pashtun nationalist and ethno-centric nature. Regards. Tajik (talk) 00:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You and JCAla both are Afghans, editing Afghanistan, called my recent edits "distortion", complaining about me on talk pages and in edit summaries. It's not usual for this, especially for Afghan Wikipedians since there aren't many who edit Afghanistan. What is highly controversial? It's only controversial to you, JCAla, and Cabolitæ because I feel that you 3 are here only for wrongly promoting Pan-Iranism. It's all in your edits. If you're not JCAla you shouldn't be worried.--Jrkso (talk) 01:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I told you I am not worried. Go and ask an admin. Your Pashtun ethno-centrist and nationalist edits are shown in the talkpages. Instead of accusing others of using sockpuppets, you should simply realize the fact that others criticize your edits because they are either factually wrong or not neutral. Tajik (talk) 11:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Point out my edit so I can understand what you're talking about. You keep mentioning Pashtuns everywhere, what's your problem with them? My edits are backed by The World Factbook, Library of Congress, Encyclopedia Britannica, U.S. State Department, Center for Applied Linguistics, Ethnologue, SIL International, and numerous well recognized American universities. I report what they say and I don't twist and turn things. I don't interpret their work in a wrong way. I think only Pan-Iranists are against my edits.--Jrkso (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Report
Because of your unencyclopedic behavior, because of your stubborn POV pushing in regard of Alexanders fake letter, because of your attitude to ignore certain discussions, and because of your POV regarding Afghanistan's ethnic groups and the relevant sources, I have reported you to WP:ANI (Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents) after being indirectly advised by User:Paul Barlow to do so. The wrong information regarding Alexander was removed as per discussion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. But you ignored my message on Talk:Afghanistan and blindly reverted. Tajik (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Your politically motivated edit warring and other nonsense
Because of your politically motivated edit warring, repeated baseless accusations and disruptive use of wikipedia notification/reporting boards (without you notifying the people you are talking about) I have referred the issue here. JCAla (talk) 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You must be talking to yourself there ma'man. After carefully reviewing your recent edits (especially this and this), it suggests that you are a Shiite Pan-Iranist who's been spreading propaganda in the Afghan related articles of Wikipedia. Go find a new hobby, nobody have time to read your nonsense.--Jrkso (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I am always amazed by your fanciful "analysis". JCAla (talk) 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I amazed many people, I'm an amazing guy.--Jrkso (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)