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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) 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)

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 Khokhar (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

More evidence of racist vandalism
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  this diff shows him adding pathetic islamophobic edit trying to portray Pakistan as militant. More trash  him stating that jihad is a duty of Muslims in Pakistan so that’s why the whole Kashmir issue formed now  this shows his obvious pov view of Pakistan. These diffs are the evidence of a very strong pov now look at him changing his first pov edit into a even more obvious pov edit  now second modification to satisfy his hunger for pov  and heres sweet little addition by wikivandal  now look at him/her attacking Pakistanis over here 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.

User:Hersfold/Vandal_watch

User:Thegreyanomaly/Nangparbat the evader

Suspected sock puppets/Nangparbat

Sockpuppet investigations/Nangparbat/Archive

AKA

AKA

AKA

also you might find this info about a wiki policy useful

Banning_policy

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)

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&amp;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&amp;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&amp;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&amp;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.

Khokhar (talk) 23:06, 4 June 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
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)

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: 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: 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)

Middle East
Salam brother.. Iraq is not an Arabian peninsula country, it is Mesopotamia, which is the eastern Fertile Crescent. Much of the Indian subcontinent is a peninsula.. from Karachi to the Ganges Delta.. but it would be wrong to say Pakistan is part of the Indian peninsula because only a very small portion of southeast Pakistan is. There is a distinction (albeit seldomly made) between a subcontinent and a peninsula. Izzedine (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

South Asia
It appears that an edit war might be starting with you and another editor. I have reverted their edit, but please discuss this with this editor and other editors on the talkpage regarding these edits

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Christianity in Pakistan
Hi K.Kokhar the article is being targeted by known Indian nationalist wikireader41 he keeps reverting my edit and puts in POV terms like persecution while in the Indian article it only states "Conflicts of christians" even though we all know the level of anti christian violence in India is obserd he also keeps removing the see also section about anti christian violence in india while adding the Gojra riots to the Pakistani article we must either change the Indian propagandist article of change the Pakistani article and make it neutral cheers 86.151.126.231 (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nishkid64 (Indian admin) is once again protecting the POV warriors of Indian heritage please help thanks 86.151.126.231 (talk) 12:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

In the case that might not know already, I wish to inform you that 86.151.126.231 is a sock of Nangparbat, a banned sockpuppeteer. All his edits should be reverted. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Urdu
Please stop adding nonsense to Urdu. It's not Mongolian and it's not Altaic. I assume that you're in good faith, but please don't repeat it.Jeppiz (talk) 03:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

my reply here

Please assume good faith, and focus on the content.
In this series of edits, it would have been better to wp:Assume good faith and to focus on the content, rather than on other editors.

Please consider addressing the flags on the content, rather than immediately assuming wp:Bad faith. This kind of behaviour makes reaching wp:consensus difficult.

Please consider studying the existing rough idea for rework of the article, and proposing an alternative (or multiple alternatives), without the wp:Bad faith nastiness.

Every major editor states the article needs to be heavily reworked/removed/split, etc. Join us, instead of attacking us, please. We have put a HUGE amount of work into this, and I know I, at least, welcome your additions.- sinneed (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi and thank you for your comments. I stated what I believed to be correct, also a lot of articles have had HUGE amounts of work done on them by individual editors yet they must all adhere to the same principles, we had first hand experience with a similar situation recently. Regards. Khokhar (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "I stated what I believed to be correct" - wp:talk. WP cannot assess "correctness".  It only can assess what is or is not in the wp:RS.  Please focus on the content that comes from wp:RS, not on the editors, their nationalities, their religions, or anything else except the content.- sinneed (talk) 23:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

South Asia
Look Pakistan does not have the second highest Per Capita in south Asia. 1st Sri Lanka, 2nd India, and 3rd Pakistan as stated by world bank. So tell me how is it POV. Look at the world bank site: Also you are User:Michale245 lol. Look I want to end this personal vendetta against each other. I come from a Muslim Indian family and don't mean any harm to Pakistan because I have family who went to Pakistan when India was divided which I think was a mistake personally. But I don't have a real problems against Pakistan as a hole, but I hold indiviual Pakistanis into account when they degrade my Indian brothers. I tried to look at Pakistanis and Indian as same, but some people esp. in the Pakistani side are too much of a nationalist in my opinion (no offense). I as someone of Muslim origin find it offensive. That is why I started editing in wiki. Also India is a rising superpower and Pakistan is struggling to survive you know that. There is no point to degrade India. If I offended you I am sorry, but please I am trying to be as neutral as possable. Also if you want to work together I will be more then happy to. It is much easier on facebook and it will be easy to find me: Dewan S Ahsan and put my college TCNJ!thankyou user talk:Dewan357


 * Very funny indeed now this nationalist thinks im a sock!!!! K.Khokar I dont know you and who you are so just ignore this User hes very anti pakistani he will end up calling you a "Paki" these revisionist Indian patriots on Wikipedia are the cause of the POV issues and damage WP as a whole they need to blocked. India is rising hunger superpower check it out: looks like you Indians just cant keep the peace with non Hindu minoritys: p.s bark some place else Michale245 (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S this troll has been copying and pasting the same lame argument on my talk page just remove it Michale245 (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Dewan357 aka Dewan753
Please take a look at this sock account of user Dewan357 same old edits and same articles being edited we need to stop this vandal Michale245 (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * look at dewan357 contribution list: and compare it to dewan753: same pages and same old revisionist edits on South asian history Michale245 (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Note on user page - Inactive?
User:K.Khokhar - I see this editor has marked the user page with an "Inactive" message. I don't know if the editor is going to see or respond to remarks here, and did not want anyone to be unhappy with the editor, so I make this note.- sinneed (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC) My apologies, the editor is active.- sinneed (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the note - sinneed, but I will likely remain inactive from now. Regards. Khokhar (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussions concerning Indian Subcontinent
An ip user Special:Contributions/76.67.18.192 is trying to bring up discussions about this at South Asia and Indian Subcontinent. They are also trying to rename a section from "Definition by South Asian Studies programs" to "Definition by tertiary studies programs"

Since you were active on this subject in the past, I thought I should warn you. (you are being informed of this because I saw you participated in discussions in the Talk:South Asia archives) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Qutab Shah's family tree is maintained to this day in Pakistan, he inherited the throne of Herat from his father Alf Shah at the age of 9 years old. Yes he joined Mahmud of Ghazni on his 17th attempt for conquest of Multan and helped him realise his dream, Mahmud Returned to Ghazni but Qutab Shah along with five out of his nine son's stayed and gradually moved onto Lahore, throughout Punjab, Sarhad(KPK) and Sindh. Shah in Persian means king and Shahi means kings son or sons, translation in Hindi is Rajput which means son of the kingdom, hence why some Khokhar's simply call themselves Rajput Khokhar, meaning son's of the Qutab Shahi sultanate/kingdom etc. The Qutab Shahi clan in western Asia connects with Bani Hashim, from Quraysh or Quraish a branch of the largest tribes in Arabia, in eastern Asia Shahi clan connects with the Khan's of central Asia, Mongolia and in the subcontinent with the Ragputs etc, hence, maintaining and spreading its influence for many centuries across the whole of Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik khohhar (talk • contribs) 09:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to WLM!
You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Pakistan. This message was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Pakistan User Group
You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Pakistan. This message was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments - Pakistan


'''Hi !

Wiki Loves Monuments, the world's largest photography competition, will be taking place in Pakistan this September. The competition is all about capturing the cultural monuments and heritage sites of Pakistan and uploading these images on Commons to create an online repository which will be freely available to all.

Start taking photos of the sites enlisted here and upload them in September to be eligible for national and international prizes.

Email: contact@wikilovesmonuments.pk Official website: wikilovesmonuments.pk Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WikiLovesMonumentsPK Posted by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Pakistan

Pakistani Cultural Heritage - Edit Drive
Hi !

Wikimedia Community User Group Pakistan is organizing an edit drive for Pakistani Wikipedians on Pakistani Cultural Heritage throughout the month of July. Top three contributors will be given a gift pack containing Wikipedia merchandise.

You can read the event details here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC) You are receiving this message as a member of WikiProject Pakistan

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)