Welcome!
Hello, Killbillsbrowser, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- 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
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --
Zoz
(t) 16:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The main article namespace is not for discussion by Wikipedians, but sub-talkpages are. Therefore I have moved the Sufism, controversy and debate article to Talk:Sufism/Controversy and debate. Please feel free to continue the discussion there. -- Zoz (t) 16:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Disputed tag to Sufism
If you dispute it, please state why on the talk page. If you're rehashing all the old comments which you've already posted, please don't bother. The discussion on the whole Unislamic thing lasted more than a month and was resolved. It's bad practice to randomly tag article with the disputed tag for no reason other than stating that it's safer. -- Nkv 04:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
-
This went on for over a month. I countered everything you and Pakiguy said and provided sources for everything. Your assertions amounted to nothing more than personal attacks and blunt unsourced statements. I then suggested a controversy section and left it for modifications for 3 weeks. No one responded. The person who helped moderate the issue (
User:David Traver) then suggested that the new section be merged back into the article. Where were you all this time? It's really uncourteous of you to throw away so much of my time and that of the people who helped moderate this and just bluntly come back and reinstate a disputed tag without even discussing why you think it's disputed and what needs to be done about it. --
Nkv 16:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- We discussed the "grand mufti of mecca". I even suggested that that link be tossed out and I never referred to that in the actual article. You didn't counter my points about Azhar, about the sayings of the traditional scholars that quoted and the rest. I even explicitly mentioned the links you posted from qss and allahuakbar.net. I admit that the link which you're talking about was not reliable (as I did in the talk page). What about the rest of the arguments? I discussed your "proofs" and you didn't counter what I said about them except by accusing me and making ad hominem attacks. I'll repeat, If you want to tag the article as being disputed, please state why in the talk page. -- Nkv 16:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
utcursch | talk 06:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
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 this important
core policy. Thank you.
Wikireader41 (
talk) 21:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- your edit here
[1] where specifically removed the word islamist. The cited reference
[2] clearly states that "Since 1989, Kashmir has seen a growing, and often violent, Muslim separatist movement against Indian rule." what was your rationale. are you saying that Kashmir insurgency does not have an
Islamist fervor?? moreover the 2 main groups fighting Indian rule are
Lashkar-e-Taiba and
Hizbul Mujahideen are both designated terrorist organizations. please read
WP:UNDUE and do not try to balance majority views with views held by tiny minority. that is a fundamental violation of
WP:NPOV thanx.--
Wikireader41 (
talk) 22:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- and while you are at it may I suggest that you research the
Ethnic Cleansing of
Kashmiri Pandits that happened in Kashmir and add some of that info to the lead also.--
Wikireader41 (
talk) 23:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- your statements are in violation of
WP:LEAD and are not
WP:NPOV. I have changed the language to align with what the reference states. There is no place for 'minority view' or 'majority view' in wikipedia. Please help us in maintaining the neutrality of wikipedia. Wikipedia aims to create neutral, well substantiated and complete picture of articles and topics rather than just one editor's view (every editor thinks their view IS the majority view). As is clear from your edits you seem to support and lead the readers to POV. As long as facts are substantiated and NPOV language, the other contributors like me will keep amending them to adhere to wiki guidelines. My recent posts about the wikileaks articles were edited and to be honest I agree with the contributor that the language was (inadvertently) leading. As my comment stated I accepted the edits with good faith. I am not trying to push any view rather trying to balance this article about a geographically and politically contentious area.
Killbillsbrowser (
talk) 15:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- You are clearly pushing a view here and are likely to find yourself blocked. per
WP:UNDUE minority views cannot be given same weight as majority views. please read the first paragraph there. we go by what RS say and not according to what an individual editor thinks. consider this your Final warning.--
Wikireader41 (
talk) 03:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think you have a clear agenda and do not use a threatening tone if you cannot carry out a conversation like mature adults. You might end up being blocked yourself.
Killbillsbrowser (
talk) 03:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC) :
Will actively monitor user.
- I think you have a clear agenda and do not use a threatening tone if you cannot carry out a conversation like mature adults. You might end up being blocked yourself.
Killbillsbrowser (
talk) 03:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC) :
- You are clearly pushing a view here and are likely to find yourself blocked. per
WP:UNDUE minority views cannot be given same weight as majority views. please read the first paragraph there. we go by what RS say and not according to what an individual editor thinks. consider this your Final warning.--
Wikireader41 (
talk) 03:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- your statements are in violation of
WP:LEAD and are not
WP:NPOV. I have changed the language to align with what the reference states. There is no place for 'minority view' or 'majority view' in wikipedia. Please help us in maintaining the neutrality of wikipedia. Wikipedia aims to create neutral, well substantiated and complete picture of articles and topics rather than just one editor's view (every editor thinks their view IS the majority view). As is clear from your edits you seem to support and lead the readers to POV. As long as facts are substantiated and NPOV language, the other contributors like me will keep amending them to adhere to wiki guidelines. My recent posts about the wikileaks articles were edited and to be honest I agree with the contributor that the language was (inadvertently) leading. As my comment stated I accepted the edits with good faith. I am not trying to push any view rather trying to balance this article about a geographically and politically contentious area.
Killbillsbrowser (
talk) 15:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- and while you are at it may I suggest that you research the
Ethnic Cleansing of
Kashmiri Pandits that happened in Kashmir and add some of that info to the lead also.--
Wikireader41 (
talk) 23:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- your edit here
[1] where specifically removed the word islamist. The cited reference
[2] clearly states that "Since 1989, Kashmir has seen a growing, and often violent, Muslim separatist movement against Indian rule." what was your rationale. are you saying that Kashmir insurgency does not have an
Islamist fervor?? moreover the 2 main groups fighting Indian rule are
Lashkar-e-Taiba and
Hizbul Mujahideen are both designated terrorist organizations. please read
WP:UNDUE and do not try to balance majority views with views held by tiny minority. that is a fundamental violation of
WP:NPOV thanx.--
Wikireader41 (
talk) 22:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Kashmir. Users who
edit disruptively or refuse to
collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.
In particular the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Elockid ( Talk) 02:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Looks to me like your edit warring with multiple editors over the past couple of days. This is considered disruptive and is grounds for blocking. Elockid ( Talk) 02:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Why did you highlight a disputed and dubious report which was published in 1996 by Amnesty international, in Kashmir conflict article as a quotation? Why? I mean what was the intention? I don't read minds but from the look of it it seemed as though you, with your tendentious editing, were trying to balance out the perceived bias in others' editing, maybe I am wrong, am I? Mrt 3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 15:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- You deleted relevant info from the article. That was a refugee in the jammu camp explaining to a BBC reporter why they are afraid, that's not 'nonsensical'. Mrt 3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 15:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on
Talk:Kashmir conflict, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button
or
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you.
Mrt
3366
(Talk page?)
(New section?) 15:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, you may be
blocked from editing.
Mrt
3366
(Talk page?)
(New section?) 15:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
in six years, interesting. Darkness Shines ( talk) 16:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- and you were saying??
Killbillsbrowser (
talk) 17:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- I guess I was saying
Quack quack shall speak to a few people.
Darkness Shines (
talk) 21:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- and
barking dogs seldom bite.
Killbillsbrowser (
talk) 21:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, have fun on your next incarnation. 21:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Killbillbrowser, calling somebody a " barking dog", is a serious violation of WP:CIVIL. I hope you get familiar with that ASAP. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 07:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, have fun on your next incarnation. 21:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- and
barking dogs seldom bite.
Killbillsbrowser (
talk) 21:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- I guess I was saying
Quack quack shall speak to a few people.
Darkness Shines (
talk) 21:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- and you were saying??
Killbillsbrowser (
talk) 17:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Message added 07:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 07:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Killbillsbrowser. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 10:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Please notify me when you go and vehemently attack my reputation behind my back. It would give me a chance to respond and defend my position. This is a fair request I presume. I couldn't help but notice that even though if you wanted you could have easily reported me in AIV or ANI or another venue. But instead, you chose to go to Tparis. Why? Okay, leave it. I trust you. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 15:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- I am not going behind your back. This is an open space and you can get to it just as Darkness Shine did. I will repeat the same thing in your presence. As for notifying, yes I will accept that, I do not know how to do it, otherwise would have done it. I do see messages on people's board generated by wiki that there is a discussion etc., but I dont know how this darn thing is done.
User:Darkness Shine has accused me of sock-puppetry because I dont edit quite often. I have already challenged him to prove it or shut up (yes please notify him that I told you this). But the truth is that I do not edit a lot, I just do not have the time, that is why do not know many of these things. Please excuse my ignorance in this matter.
Killbillsbrowser (
talk) 16:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Simply write it down on my talk page. I'm sure you know how to do that. To make it more easier, in my signature there is something called (New thread?) just click it and write the message. Thank you. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 05:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Killbillsbrowser, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- 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
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --
Zoz
(t) 16:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The main article namespace is not for discussion by Wikipedians, but sub-talkpages are. Therefore I have moved the Sufism, controversy and debate article to Talk:Sufism/Controversy and debate. Please feel free to continue the discussion there. -- Zoz (t) 16:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Disputed tag to Sufism
If you dispute it, please state why on the talk page. If you're rehashing all the old comments which you've already posted, please don't bother. The discussion on the whole Unislamic thing lasted more than a month and was resolved. It's bad practice to randomly tag article with the disputed tag for no reason other than stating that it's safer. -- Nkv 04:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
-
This went on for over a month. I countered everything you and Pakiguy said and provided sources for everything. Your assertions amounted to nothing more than personal attacks and blunt unsourced statements. I then suggested a controversy section and left it for modifications for 3 weeks. No one responded. The person who helped moderate the issue (
User:David Traver) then suggested that the new section be merged back into the article. Where were you all this time? It's really uncourteous of you to throw away so much of my time and that of the people who helped moderate this and just bluntly come back and reinstate a disputed tag without even discussing why you think it's disputed and what needs to be done about it. --
Nkv 16:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- We discussed the "grand mufti of mecca". I even suggested that that link be tossed out and I never referred to that in the actual article. You didn't counter my points about Azhar, about the sayings of the traditional scholars that quoted and the rest. I even explicitly mentioned the links you posted from qss and allahuakbar.net. I admit that the link which you're talking about was not reliable (as I did in the talk page). What about the rest of the arguments? I discussed your "proofs" and you didn't counter what I said about them except by accusing me and making ad hominem attacks. I'll repeat, If you want to tag the article as being disputed, please state why in the talk page. -- Nkv 16:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
utcursch | talk 06:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
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 this important
core policy. Thank you.
Wikireader41 (
talk) 21:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- your edit here
[1] where specifically removed the word islamist. The cited reference
[2] clearly states that "Since 1989, Kashmir has seen a growing, and often violent, Muslim separatist movement against Indian rule." what was your rationale. are you saying that Kashmir insurgency does not have an
Islamist fervor?? moreover the 2 main groups fighting Indian rule are
Lashkar-e-Taiba and
Hizbul Mujahideen are both designated terrorist organizations. please read
WP:UNDUE and do not try to balance majority views with views held by tiny minority. that is a fundamental violation of
WP:NPOV thanx.--
Wikireader41 (
talk) 22:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- and while you are at it may I suggest that you research the
Ethnic Cleansing of
Kashmiri Pandits that happened in Kashmir and add some of that info to the lead also.--
Wikireader41 (
talk) 23:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- your statements are in violation of
WP:LEAD and are not
WP:NPOV. I have changed the language to align with what the reference states. There is no place for 'minority view' or 'majority view' in wikipedia. Please help us in maintaining the neutrality of wikipedia. Wikipedia aims to create neutral, well substantiated and complete picture of articles and topics rather than just one editor's view (every editor thinks their view IS the majority view). As is clear from your edits you seem to support and lead the readers to POV. As long as facts are substantiated and NPOV language, the other contributors like me will keep amending them to adhere to wiki guidelines. My recent posts about the wikileaks articles were edited and to be honest I agree with the contributor that the language was (inadvertently) leading. As my comment stated I accepted the edits with good faith. I am not trying to push any view rather trying to balance this article about a geographically and politically contentious area.
Killbillsbrowser (
talk) 15:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- You are clearly pushing a view here and are likely to find yourself blocked. per
WP:UNDUE minority views cannot be given same weight as majority views. please read the first paragraph there. we go by what RS say and not according to what an individual editor thinks. consider this your Final warning.--
Wikireader41 (
talk) 03:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think you have a clear agenda and do not use a threatening tone if you cannot carry out a conversation like mature adults. You might end up being blocked yourself.
Killbillsbrowser (
talk) 03:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC) : Will actively monitor user.
- I think you have a clear agenda and do not use a threatening tone if you cannot carry out a conversation like mature adults. You might end up being blocked yourself.
Killbillsbrowser (
talk) 03:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC) :
- You are clearly pushing a view here and are likely to find yourself blocked. per
WP:UNDUE minority views cannot be given same weight as majority views. please read the first paragraph there. we go by what RS say and not according to what an individual editor thinks. consider this your Final warning.--
Wikireader41 (
talk) 03:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- your statements are in violation of
WP:LEAD and are not
WP:NPOV. I have changed the language to align with what the reference states. There is no place for 'minority view' or 'majority view' in wikipedia. Please help us in maintaining the neutrality of wikipedia. Wikipedia aims to create neutral, well substantiated and complete picture of articles and topics rather than just one editor's view (every editor thinks their view IS the majority view). As is clear from your edits you seem to support and lead the readers to POV. As long as facts are substantiated and NPOV language, the other contributors like me will keep amending them to adhere to wiki guidelines. My recent posts about the wikileaks articles were edited and to be honest I agree with the contributor that the language was (inadvertently) leading. As my comment stated I accepted the edits with good faith. I am not trying to push any view rather trying to balance this article about a geographically and politically contentious area.
Killbillsbrowser (
talk) 15:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- and while you are at it may I suggest that you research the
Ethnic Cleansing of
Kashmiri Pandits that happened in Kashmir and add some of that info to the lead also.--
Wikireader41 (
talk) 23:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- your edit here
[1] where specifically removed the word islamist. The cited reference
[2] clearly states that "Since 1989, Kashmir has seen a growing, and often violent, Muslim separatist movement against Indian rule." what was your rationale. are you saying that Kashmir insurgency does not have an
Islamist fervor?? moreover the 2 main groups fighting Indian rule are
Lashkar-e-Taiba and
Hizbul Mujahideen are both designated terrorist organizations. please read
WP:UNDUE and do not try to balance majority views with views held by tiny minority. that is a fundamental violation of
WP:NPOV thanx.--
Wikireader41 (
talk) 22:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Kashmir. Users who
edit disruptively or refuse to
collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.
In particular the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Elockid ( Talk) 02:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Looks to me like your edit warring with multiple editors over the past couple of days. This is considered disruptive and is grounds for blocking. Elockid ( Talk) 02:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Why did you highlight a disputed and dubious report which was published in 1996 by Amnesty international, in Kashmir conflict article as a quotation? Why? I mean what was the intention? I don't read minds but from the look of it it seemed as though you, with your tendentious editing, were trying to balance out the perceived bias in others' editing, maybe I am wrong, am I? Mrt 3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 15:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- You deleted relevant info from the article. That was a refugee in the jammu camp explaining to a BBC reporter why they are afraid, that's not 'nonsensical'. Mrt 3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 15:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on
Talk:Kashmir conflict, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button
or
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you.
Mrt
3366
(Talk page?)
(New section?) 15:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, you may be
blocked from editing.
Mrt
3366
(Talk page?)
(New section?) 15:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
in six years, interesting. Darkness Shines ( talk) 16:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- and you were saying??
Killbillsbrowser (
talk) 17:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- I guess I was saying
Quack quack shall speak to a few people.
Darkness Shines (
talk) 21:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- and
barking dogs seldom bite.
Killbillsbrowser (
talk) 21:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, have fun on your next incarnation. 21:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Killbillbrowser, calling somebody a " barking dog", is a serious violation of WP:CIVIL. I hope you get familiar with that ASAP. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 07:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, have fun on your next incarnation. 21:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- and
barking dogs seldom bite.
Killbillsbrowser (
talk) 21:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- I guess I was saying
Quack quack shall speak to a few people.
Darkness Shines (
talk) 21:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- and you were saying??
Killbillsbrowser (
talk) 17:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Message added 07:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 07:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Killbillsbrowser. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 10:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Please notify me when you go and vehemently attack my reputation behind my back. It would give me a chance to respond and defend my position. This is a fair request I presume. I couldn't help but notice that even though if you wanted you could have easily reported me in AIV or ANI or another venue. But instead, you chose to go to Tparis. Why? Okay, leave it. I trust you. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 15:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- I am not going behind your back. This is an open space and you can get to it just as Darkness Shine did. I will repeat the same thing in your presence. As for notifying, yes I will accept that, I do not know how to do it, otherwise would have done it. I do see messages on people's board generated by wiki that there is a discussion etc., but I dont know how this darn thing is done.
User:Darkness Shine has accused me of sock-puppetry because I dont edit quite often. I have already challenged him to prove it or shut up (yes please notify him that I told you this). But the truth is that I do not edit a lot, I just do not have the time, that is why do not know many of these things. Please excuse my ignorance in this matter.
Killbillsbrowser (
talk) 16:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Simply write it down on my talk page. I'm sure you know how to do that. To make it more easier, in my signature there is something called (New thread?) just click it and write the message. Thank you. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 05:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)