User talk:Karumari

Welcome!
Hello, Karumari, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Annexation of Goa did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

November 2018
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Kafir, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 12:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't able to verify this edit to Kafir. Could you provide a supporting quotation from page 619 of the source? Buddytula (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

You inserted this as well, later correcting the page number. Does the insertion rely on the author stating "Muhammad is also said to have ordered that conversion should first of all be attempted and a period of three days allow for this; but all this can hardly be genuine"? What do you make of the author noting immediately afterward that the saying "can hardly be genuine"? Also, why did you insert this into the "In the Quran" section of the article given that the author makes no mention of a relevant Quranic verse? This insertion suffers some similar problems. The author discusses the rule in the context of warfare and does not mention any relevant Quranic verses. Buddytula (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * E. J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1913–1936, Volume 4 was cited as a reference already. I just read more of it and cited other sentences from it. I have been doing, "zikr/dhikr" constantly for the past 7 years and divine beings have told me that, Muhammad sall Allahu 'alayhi wasallam, (peace be upon Him) never told anybody to forcibly convert or kill non-Muslims but all that has crept into the Quran by misinterpretation/corruption, later (He has said that there is no coercion in religion). I have acted in good faith, please don't misunderstand.-Karumari (talk) 08:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Iss kaaynaat ke tamaam khaavateen o hazraton ko maaloom hona zaroori hai ki terrorism haraam hai.-Karumari (talk) 08:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read the reference that I have cited for this edit, it does say so. This edit is also according to the reference cited.-Karumari (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've read all of the referenced pages already, but you haven't addressed any of the questions I've posed about why the citations are problematic. Buddytula (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I had paraphrased and written:-
 * and
 * The cited references say, "Every unbeliever who does not pay the jizya or does not belong to a people which has a treaty with the Muslim community or is not a Mustamin may be killed at anytime with impunity by any muslim" and "Women and minors are to be enslaved and even beaten up every three days till they repent".-Karumari (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. I've found the original quotes for each of your insertions, except for this one. Here's the original quote for this insertion (it's different than what you've provided):
 * "Every unbeliever who does not pay the djizya or does not belong to a people which has a treaty with the Muslim community or is not a musta'min [certain non-Muslim foreigners] (on these cf. the art. KISAS) is halal al-dam (to be killed with impunity) and may at any time be killed by any Muslim without his being liable to kisas or to any diya or perform kaffara. This enactment is only the natural consequence of the djihad law and Muhammad himself not infrequently made use of it."
 * The previous paragraph establishes the section is discussing unbelievers "with whom war is being waged." Do you see any issue with the sentence you inserted in a section on Kafirs (unbelievers) in the Qur'an, given you misquoted musta'min, that the context of this is warfare (jihad), and that there is no mention of relevant Quranic verses?
 * Here's the original quote for the other insertion:"Abu Hanifa and his school limit the punishment of death to male apostates and the consensus of opinion excludes the minor; a woman (and also a minor) is imprisoned and beaten every three days till she repents."
 * Do you see any issue with the sentence you inserted, given that you inserted it in a section on Kafirs in the Qur'an, whereas the reference makes no mention of the Qur'an and addresses apostasy instead of Kafirs per se? Wouldn't this be much more relevant at Apostasy in Islam?
 * Your insertion of both of these sentences is not only irrelevant on a section on the unbelievers in the Quran, but is also highly misleading. Please do not do this again, unless you would like this conduct to be reported as another user also suggested on your talk page. Buddytula (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It was in the same paragraph mentioning the E. J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1913–1936, Volume 4, so I don't see any problem!-Karumari (talk)
 * This reasoning is quite poor. Buddytula (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ,You re-inserted an edit that an i.p. had removed, probably because you realise that that fatwa is good. Please re-insert that edit into the Religious terrorism article also into whatever section you like (preferably the, "criticism of the concept" section), we can avoid an edit war then!-Karumari (talk) 01:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the fatwa is perfectly "good" and relevant in that section of Islamic terrorism in which I placed it. Although you originally placed it in the lead, I don't think it was appropriate there. I removed it from other articles for its irrelevance. I won't be restoring it to Religious terrorism for the same reason I removed it previously. However, if you'd like to restore it, a new section on "Religious opinions" may be suitable. Buddytula (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the fatwa is perfectly "good" and relevant in that section of Islamic terrorism in which I placed it. Although you originally placed it in the lead, I don't think it was appropriate there. I removed it from other articles for its irrelevance. I won't be restoring it to Religious terrorism for the same reason I removed it previously. However, if you'd like to restore it, a new section on "Religious opinions" may be suitable. Buddytula (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Some information and advice that I hope may be helpful
Hello, Karumari. I have seen the messages you posted at Talk:Terrorism, and I have a few comments which I hope may be helpful to you. Normally, I post any response to a talk page post on the same talk page, to avoid fragmenting a conversation and making it hard to follow, but on this occasion I thought it might be helpful to have my comments on your talk page, for possible future reference, so I am posting them here.

I see that you are a fairly new editor, so it is likely that you don't yet fully understand how things work here, so I here are a few pointers.

One of the things about Wikipedia is that anybody is allowed to edit. That means that anyone who posts content here does not own it, and any other editor may change the content of an article which you have edited, and if they don't agree with your editing they may revert it. Obviously, if you think was mistaken in reverting your editing then you are free to post your explanation as to why, and be willing to discuss the matter, in the hope of reaching agreement. (Indeed, you are more than just "free" to do so: you are totally welcome to.) However, he was perfectly within his rights making the revert in the first place. Disagreements of this kind between editors happen all the time, and there is no basis for any administrator to take action. You may find it helpful to read BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which is not an official policy or guideline, but it describes a widely accepted way of dealing with situations of this kind.

When Snowded reverted your editing, he gave an edit summary saying why: "That really isn't neutral", and indeed many people would see your edit as expressing a point of view, rather than being neutral. Much of your other editing, too, appears to be made with the aim of promoting particular views, particularly on terrorism, and specifically on islamic views of terrorism. Wikipedia policy is that articles must be written from a neutral point of view, and any content which expresses an opinion or espouses a point of view should be removed. Your post to the article's talk page in which you said "I hope you realise that terrorism is the world's greatest problem now" is likewise an expression of a point of view, and many people regard other things as "the world's greatest problem now". There is a good deal more leeway for expressing a point of view on talk pages than in articles, but that comment was posted in relation to your objecting to reverting your editing of the article, and in its context it is a clear confirmation that you view the editing in question in terms of that point of view.

Finally, a word of advice on dealing with disagreements with other editors. I recommend in the first instance approaching other editors with whom you disagree with a courteous explanation of why you disagree, and a friendly invitation to discuss the matter, even if you think they are being unreasonable. That way, you come across as a reasonable editor who is willing to try to sort things out in an amicable manner. If instead your first approach is expressed in such terms as demanding to know whether there is any reason not to report the other editor to an administrator, there is a danger that you may be seen by some other editors as being unnecessarily aggressive and combative, which is likely to make them less likely to be supportive. Of course there are occasions when reporting a matter to administrators is the right thing to do, but except for a few situations, such as serious personal attacks or libel, it is almost always better to start out in a collaborative spirit, and hold reporting to administrators in reserve for cases sorting things out amicably have been tried and failed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have now posted a friendly invitation to discuss the matter and asked for his suggestion. I hope you can also suggest something!-Karumari (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Fatawa against terrorism
. السلام عليكم و رحمة الله تعالى وبركاته. I hope you are well. I’m not quite sure I understand. Do you want to create a new Wikipedia page that lists and describes all the fatawa promulgated against terrorism? If so, go ahead and start creating one in your sandbox. I’ll be glad to help once you’ve got the basics in place. You might be able to use some of the information found on this page: List of fatwas. Best regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes Sir! Ya Allah madad kar!-Karumari (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Great, so please refrain from editing the Fatwa on Terrorism page in the meantime. Let's take a holistic approach, starting with your own page on fatawa against terrorism. Once we are happy with that we can see how it impacts on other pages. I hope this is fine. Best regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 11:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

My friend, you don't seem to be very open to what other editors are trying to say. Please try to work with people, not just on your own. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Look you can't just go round articles trying to insert material based on your opinion. If you carry on you'll end up at ANI with a topic ban -Snowded TALK 11:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I copied that from the article titled Fitna (word), citing all the references used there. If you work for a counter terrorism department you should help me rather than be reverting my edits!-Karumari (talk) 11:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * dear Karumari, this is not the way to deal with fellow editors who are acting in good faith. Try a more collegial and friendly manner. Best regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You keep trying to justify contested edits on the grounds that you copied material from elsewhere. In this case you copied some material but made a synthesis here to make a political point.  I and others have explained this to you]] so I suggest you properly read up on reliable sources and start to propose edits on the talk page until you get some more experience -[[User:Snowded|Snowded TALK 19:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks!-Karumari (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Look, constantly cutting and pasting stuff from one article to another is not going to make you many friends here. Edit summaries saying that anyone who reverts you is a terrorist sympathiser are simply not on - stop it or you'll end up at ANI with a request for a sanction of some type. I have just reverted your latest insert as the material is not relevant to that article, it is elsewhere. -Snowded TALK 07:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , please let me know if there is a rule against that (copying and pasting)-Karumari (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear Karumari, you clearly have difficulty accepting advice. User Snowded has already explained it. Please try to be more collaborative and less argumentative. Best regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

trying to help
You seem to be on a mission here - text and a political position that you agreement being inserted into multiple articles. That really isn't going to get you anywhere. Cutting and pasting from one article to the other is also frowned on. I'm happy to help but I'm close to requesting a topic ban. So a suggestion - if you feel something belongs on an article then write up here (or on the talk page) what you are trying to achieve. I (or others) will then help you get it into an acceptable form -Snowded TALK 13:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Continuing problems
Hello again, Karumari. I came back today to see how you had been getting on with the advice that I gave you a while ago. I see that you have had numerous messages, both on this page and elsewhere, attempting to explain to you why some of your edits have been considered problematic. in particular has put a considerable amount of effort into trying to help you, and there have also been contributions from and, not to mention one message from Doug Weller, and my own message above, into which I put a significant amount of time and effort. There is no point in trying to explain again in detail what the problems are, because if you have not understood what has been said to you already, numerous times, you are not likely to suddenly understand because you are told once more. However, the fundamental point seems to be encapsulated in what Snowded said above: "You seem to be on a mission here". Your mission to post content expressing a view which you believe deserves to be given publicity seems to take over from all other considerations, and blind you to other considerations. I have no reason at all to doubt that you are acting in good faith, but your editing is not being helpful. Continuing in the same way could lead to your being blocked from editing, but I see that Snowded has suggested a possible topic ban, which would be a more limited, and perhaps better, way of dealing with the matter. It would allow you to continue to edit on other topics, while banning you from editing on the topic where you have been causing problems. The arbitration committee has authorised any administrator to issue sanctions, including topic bans, in relation to editing on certain topics, one of them being the broad area of India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, and since a large proportion of the problems are in your editing on the subject of "terrorism in Pakistan" a topic ban in that subject area is quite possible. I will post a copy of the formal message about this below, so that you understand what it is about, but I suggest that it would be a good idea for you to voluntarily stop editing on the subject of "terrorism", whether in Pakistan or anywhere else, perhaps for six months or a year, by which time you may perhaps manage to see things more in perspective. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , so am I banned from anything yet? I don't see my name there-Karumari (talk) 04:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You've been warned and advised that you might want to think about taking a voluntary break from the subject. There is nothing here that could make that question legitimate. This type of question raises issues as to your general ability to contribute to this encyclopaedia. Try reading what people say, thinking about it, maybe checking your understanding before you react. -Snowded <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 06:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The frustrating thing, Karumari, is that editors tried to assist you, but you rejected their advice and just blundered ahead regardless. Go back through all the editors’ advice and try to reflect on the help you were offered. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre 06:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks guys. Can I write about celebrities of these countries?-Karumari (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You can write about anything provided you use WP:RS third party references, stop cutting and pasting between articles and generally avoid expressing your own opinions. -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 17:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So, if a newspaper or book or news website says something, can I use the same sentence they use or should it be paraphrased?-Karumari (talk) 05:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello Karumari, my advice is that direct quotation is fine, especially if you are not yet skilled at paraphrasing, but keep direct quotes short (I’d recommend no longer than two or three sentences) and always between the speech marks (“ “) and then provide a RS as a citation. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre 06:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Also be careful - the quote may be someone's opinion and would have to be qualified as such (eg X has claimed that ...). It would also have to relevant to the article and pass the test of weight.  I just reverted your edit on Terrorism in Pakistan for that reason.  Extended political polemic from Trump doesn't pass that test.  There might (and I repeat might) be a case for a single line saying that the Trump administration withdrew aid citing its dissatisfaction with Pakistans counter-terrorism.  But you can't use that as a definite statement about Pakistan.  I'd suggest you do some basic work on non-controversial articles first -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 07:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Dear Karumari, this is very good advice from <b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b>, especially to remember that an opinion even in a RS remains just an opinion. Phrases like “X asserts that ...” or “According to one commentator, ...” serve usefully to show readers that the quoted statement is just an opinion, and not necessary an established fact. I’m disappointed to see you’ve been reverted again already. To become a good editor you really are going to have to read more about how Wikipedia actually works. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre 11:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So why don't you guys modify what is written instead of reverting the whole thing., please modify what removed a while ago (about the Trump administration withdrawing aid citing its dissatisfaction with Pakistan's counter-terrorism) and put it back in a way that would be acceptable. Please also add these 2 sentences to the article that are at the beginning of this proposal in an acceptable way. Thanks!-Karumari (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Iss kaaynaat ke tamaam khaavateen o hazraton ko maaloom hona zaroori hai ki terrorism haraam hai.&mdash;Karumari (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

We're not here to do your job for you - learn how to edit. This is your last warning, carry on like this and I'll make a case for a topic ban -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 17:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You are reverting everything I add! I made this proposal about all the permutations and combinations possible but all of them were unacceptable to you. I believe I am being bulllied here!-Karumari (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear Karumari, your accusation of bullying is outrageous and you should not repeat it. You want everything your own way and you don’t listen to advice. Don’t tell other editors to do your work for you. Do it yourself. Just do it properly for once. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre 04:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

My last warning
Karumari, when I wrote my first message above I did so in the belief that you did not understand certain facts about how Wikipedia works, but that you would be able to understand them if they were explained to you. As time has gone on, however, the following two impressions have steadily become more and more difficult to avoid. Firstly, it seems that you cannot understand the issues, even when they have been patiently explained to you several times. Secondly, you do not appear to be at all interested in moving on from your attempt to edit to promote your point of view on one issue. You concentrate on finding ways to make the content you originally intended to post acceptable, rather than either on discussing whether it is acceptable at all, or (better still) on contributing to Wikipedia in other areas. It has become increasingly evident that you either can't or won't drop the matter and move on. I suggested that you try moving onto other topics until you had more experience, but you have chosen not to take that advice. I did think that if you didn't then it might come down to imposing a topic ban, but in view of what I have seen since then it seems that may not help, because you persistently either can't or won't hear what others are saying to you, and experience over the years shows that editors for whom that is so do no better on other topics. It therefore looks to me very much as though you are heading towards being blocked from editing. In order to help you avoid that happening, I am advising you once more to leave editing about either or both of Pakistan and terrorism, and get experience in other areas. At present this is still only advice, and you are free to ignore it, but if you do ignore it and the same problems with your editing continue, it will be a question of deciding whether to impose an arbitration enforcement topic ban or to simply block you from editing. Many administrators would have taken action long before this, and very few would have put in a tenth of the time I have put in to trying to help you and give you every chance. Even I have now come to the end of putting in work trying to help you and seeing that my efforts achieve nothing; the other editors who have put time into trying to help you may well feel the same, especially when they see such nonsense as their attempts to help being called "bullying". If you still don't get the message then any decision I take on what to do next will be based on what I judge to be most beneficial to Wikipedia. For the very last time, I urge you to take the advice I have given you above. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bangalore, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Haider Ali ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Bangalore check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Bangalore?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Question on WP:AN
Hi, just to let you know that I've moved your question from the Administrator's noticeboard to the Teahouse, which is a better place to get help from experienced editors. You can find it here. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;  Discuss  11:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks!&mdash;Karumari (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban
I see that you have taken the advice to abstain from editing about terrorism in Pakistan, but unfortunately that has merely meant that the problems with your editing have moved to another topic. Despite advice given to you over the last few months, both on this page and elsewhere, you still seem unable to understand basic points regarding editing. This includes, but is not restricted to, inability to grasp the distinction between reliable and unreliable sources, inability to distinguish between a source actually saying what you would like it to say and saying something related but significantly different, inability to distinguish doing something which has a particular effect from doing it for the purpose of producing that effect, and inability to distinguish offending people of a general category from defending a particular group of people who happen to belong to that category. It seems even more likely to me that you are unable, rather than unwilling, to understand the relevant issues than it seemed in November, when I wrote my message above. That tends to confirm my impression that a block on editing is likely to be needed, but another editor has asked me to consider a topic ban, and I am willing to try that, in the hope that it will help you. While the topic ban is in operation I suggest that you edit on topics in which you do not have strong personal feelings, as you evidently do in the topics where you have edited until now. If you do that, you may stand a better chance of learning how Wikipedia works, and what approaches to editing are acceptable. I also strongly urge you to try to learn to drop a topic when you are clearly not going to get what you want, and move on to other areas. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)