User talk:Wikireader41/Archive2

Hi
Dogs without bite but bark how funny it is your a sock of Hkelkar and all your edits will eventually be deleted 86.156.208.244 (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * To Wikireader41: 86.156.208.244 has claimed that you used unreliable Government sources. Please take the matter up with him. Fahadsadah (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Fahadsadah (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis
A tag has been placed on Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. → Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is PURE VANDALISM by this editor according to the administrator who reverted him 3 minutes later. pay attention to the edit summary here--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In this debate you may want to format your comment (bullet point, bold face "Keep") in the same way I did. You will see there that I opined to keep the article, but you should take to heart my comments about WP:NPOV.  The article seems currently designed to convince the reader that Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis is a threat.  The article should be improved to help the reader understand those who feel the tendency has been exaggerated, the negative effects that this perception has on the British Muslim community, etc.  --Boston (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You are being discussed on ANI.
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrator's noticeboard regarding your /Scratchpad page. Thank you. // roux   02:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Nangparbat
Yes those are him.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 02:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis
Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis looks like synthesis to me. Although some of your sources mention terrorist attacks perpetrated by British Muslims, they don't really discuss this phenomenon in detail. Try looking for more reliable sources? Also note that you must edit in a neutral manner; I noticed some of your previous edits reeked of an anti-Pakistani POV. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Wikireader41, I'd advise you to refrain as much as possible from responding to individual comments at Articles for deletion/Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis. I have to try harder to follow this advise as well!  We're both repeating ourselves, and that is unflattering.  As you may know, it's not a vote, it's a poll, and in the end an Admin makes the decision.  The fact that is is not synthesis has already been stated.  The way the article looks now, and the fact that the opinion poll is about 50/50, it's extremely unlikely the article will get deleted (it will be "no consensus").  Being too zealous in this discussion can only serve to harm the article's chances.  People tend to opine against whoever seems most annoying or foolish.  Let that person be Ãlways Ãhëad, not one of us.  Peace. --Boston (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I will take your advice to heart. so you are saying not responding to peoples comments will not hurt the articles chances of survival in any way ??  Thanx for all your work to improve the article.  I am still new to wikipedia and this is my first time on AfD.  --Wikireader41 (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a debate, so yes, the less we say at this point the better. --Boston (talk) 01:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some truth in Sillyfolkboy's comments...you've made comments in the past that can be used against you and these might make your current efforts seems POV even when they aren't. Another bote: User:Bali ultimate just left a comment at the AfD debate I am sure you'll disagree with.  But that is this user's opinion and unlike the comments made by some other editors, there is no bad info in this comment that needs correction.  Your viewpoint has already been explained, I would let this user's comment sit. In AfD debates, trying too hard to win all the battles can easily lead to a loss of the war. Chillax and hope for the best!  --Boston (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. → Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you guys edit war over this article you are both going to make yourselves miserable all weekend!    Remember when Wikipedia used to be fun?  Conflict is not fun, and if/when it becomes fun it means we've become broken people.  You're both articulate, well-intentioned editors.  Let’s not let this hobby help break us or to lessen the compassion within us which is essential to Christian, Hindu, Muslim or Humanist alike.  I haven't checked the edit history of to Pakistan-administered Kashmir, yet I humbly but earnestly suggest that which ever of you has edited that article less just walk away from it for a few days. The issues and people are super-important.  Nuances in the Wikipedia articles about issues and people are far less important.  Let's all try to enjoy our weekend and all try to interact better with each other from now on.  Interacting better on a one-to-one level – even anonymously online – is a baby step towards a more peaceful planet.  Peace.  Peace!  PEACE! - --Boston (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not edit warring with anyone. Neither Do I do OR. just correcting misinformation being spread by Nangparbat, his sockpuppets and allies. It is extremely important to maintain the integrity and credibility of Wikipedia and doing my 2 cents to get this world rid of VANDALS.  I hope you agree.--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * also known VANDAL like → Ãlways Ãhëad giving advise on wikipedia policy.See administrator Mfield's comments here Reverted 1 edit by UnknownForEver identified as vandalism to last revision by Happyme22  Does not get better than this.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You've also some past behavior which is not exemplary. So do I.  None of us is perfect online or offline, but we shouldn’t close our eyes to people’s potential for goodness.  Everyday we should try to do better and try to forgive past conflicts so that others will have opportunity to do better as well.  Our good attempts can go wrong, but everyday we can try again.  I wish you well. --Boston (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome
--GDibyendu (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No flagged revisions category up for deletion
The category associated with the no flagged revisions userbox you have placed on your user page is up for deletion at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009 April 23 and you are invited to share your opinions on the issue. Alansohn (talk) 05:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your efforts in trying to revert Nangparbat's POV pushing, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out your intentions on British Pakistanis. Tone it down a bit, or you will be blocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Easier to just lock the articles that Nangparbat edits. blocking him is useless  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 06:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You should see Sino-Indian War  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 03:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

ANI discussion
If you want to add anything to Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Really
If your going to be uncooperative and take an offensive tone against an experienced editor, I will report you. You have the guts to threaten me with a block when I have done nothing wrong? Do it again, and I WILL make sure you lose your twinkle privileges. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ReallyWikireader41 (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ignore this indian vandal and keep reverting his trash dont worry ill keep your talk page protected from his tentacles 86.156.212.76 (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)