User talk:Wikireader41/Archive1

Archive 1 March 11, 2009

My Sandbox
/Sandbox

User:Algebraic123
Could be a sock of User:Nadirali.Ontopofcosts (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

nice try look at his edit history and compare to mine no correlation however you sound very much like User:KashmirCloud —Preceding unsigned comment added by Algebraic123 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. — Snigbrook 13:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Toddst1 (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

AfD nomination of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1172
I have nominated United Nations Security Council Resolution 1172, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/United Nations Security Council Resolution 1172. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. dougweller (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

looks like you guys decided to keep the article. in this resolution UN dropped the demand for plebiscite which is why I think it is important.(Wikireader41 (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC))

India quick links
utcursch | talk 03:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

1998 Prankote massacre
1998 Prankote massacre seems a more sensible title. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

thanx for fixing it Wikireader41 (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good work on articles related to the Kashmir Conflict, buddy. utcursch | talk 03:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Advice
Rather than waste your energy on digging up hindu radical RSS/BJP funded websites maybe add some proper valid sites to your botched up new page 86.162.67.153 (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

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) 03:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

86.162.67.153
Yes, 86.162.67.153 is Algebraic123. I've now blocked the IP for one week. I must warn you that some of your comments are bordering on violations of our civility and personal attack policy. In the future, I recommend you not antagonize editors who have no serious interest in contributing to Wikipedia in a positive manner. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 07:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Indo-Pak War of '65
Hi there Wikireader41 and thanks for your note. I removed the article because I had (still have) apprehensions about the neutrality of the source. The article may be from TIME, a decidedly unbiased source, however the tone of this article, along with the recurring uses of phrases like "Red China" throughout this article cast the writer's ability to construct a credibly neutral article in poor light. It would be ok to rephrase this reference in the Wikipedia article by saying something like "...in the opinion of one commentator on TIME, Pakistan was severely...". However, I don't think this serves any purpose. On Wikipedia, we should just stick to presenting factual, quantifiable data, and let the readers make their own interpretation. I ask that you remove this reference from the article. Thanks AreJay (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes, it's no doubt that Pakistan's primary goal of liberating Kashmir was not achieved. The question, however, isn't whether Pakistan won or lost the war.  My issue is with the verbiage used in the text, which seems anything but based on facts.  On Wikipedia, we evaluate reliable sources (WP:RS), not by the name of the publisher, but by the actual content of the source.  Most neutral sources indicate that India lost about 3,000 soldiers, and Pakistan 3,800.  India lost more aircraft than did Pakistan and the IAF was not in a position to establish air superiority during the war. In fact, Pakistan's pride "1 Armoured Division" advanced 15 miles into Indian territory before being defeated at Asal Uttar.  All these facts show that the war was a lot closer than this article appears to indicate.  It can therefore not be passed off as a credible source.  If you still believe in its credibility, I suggest we move this discussion to the article's talk page, where other contributors can also comment on the issue.  Thanks AreJay (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Your comments to Rashtra
Rashtra has been blocked. If you continue your personal attacks and incivility toward any editor – even Nangparbat – you will be blocked. Consider this your only warning. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:CHILL
Hi!

Please keep in mind, Nanga and other banned ips will try to troll you from time to time. Keep your cool. Wikipedia:Do not feed trolls is a policy to go by. Don't give into them and get yourself blocked by replying. Its human nature, but try to keep restraint. Remember Gandhism. Wikipedia needs more editors like you who follow WP:NPOV. But by giving into trolls and attacking them personally (see WP:NPA).. you may get yourself blocked! Happy eding! Cheers! -- KnowledgeHegemony talk 07:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 1997 Sangrampora massacre
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article 1997 Sangrampora massacre, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable event, only one chapter in a conflict which is notable.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 23:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 1994 kidnappings of Western tourists in India
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article 1994 kidnappings of Western tourists in India, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Minor chapter in a major conflict.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 00:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops
I have moved Wikireader41/References to User:Wikireader41/References. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)