User talk: Kashmiri

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User:Kashmiri)
Jump to: navigation, search
Committed identity: 93e503f09fd69f42d86838f9f8ba05e2af45efbdf563c26448bd87e7979cb42b983bdb36e4121469aca4cfb936318ee9c7745a40aefb1d81504f74edc16f11fe is a SHA-512 commitment to this user's real-life identity.

Bcha[edit]

Paper pr chahe jo mrzi likh le saraikistan ek khwaab tha or khwaab rhega. Baap ki olad hay to lay kr dikhao 39.47.190.237 (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Khwaabon ke bare me likhnaa yahan manaa nahin hai. Paper jalane se idea ghaib nahin hota. kashmiri TALK 17:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Citation templates[edit]

I just noticed that you have created at least two pages as citation templates, quite literally:

Why? I question whether we should be cluttering up Wikipedia with such templates. Create the template and use it in the article. Period. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, this has been a subject of heated debate since DOI bot came into existence. Myself, I was always favouring use of citation templates - personally I think academic sources should even be integrated in Wikidata. The templates you mention were created automatically when I entered {{cite doi}} template in the article code. I think we also differ in our definition of "cluttering". Regards, kashmiri TALK 12:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Burzynski[edit]

You reverted the fact that his claimed Ph.D. is unverifiable. Perhaps you're not aware: it was almost certainly not a Ph.D. because Medical University of Lublin does not appear to have awarded that qualification at that time. I might have been a D.MSc. or similar, but the only source for the claim - literally, the only source - is a fax supplied by Burzynski and purporting to come from a person at Lublin. I don't think it's at all clear cut, and that's what the Quackwatch article said. I am pretty familiar with this subject, and as an admin I'm not given to random hatchet jobs. Guy (Help!) 20:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi JzG, the Medical University of Lublin conferred doctorate in medical science since 1945 and doctorate in pharmaceutical sciences since 1962[1]. Doctorate in medical science is equivalent to the degree Doctor of Medicine which according to its Wikipedia entry is "equivalent to Ph.D."
Certainly, I cannot vouch that Burzynski has indeed obtained a tertiary degree; this can only be confirmed by the university. There was no separate biochemistry doctorate at the University at the time, although I imagine it was possible to do a biochemistry specialisation within the pharmacology degree. However, since no sources seem to question his academic credentials (unless you can offer one), expressing doubts in them in a Wikipedia article felt slightly WP:OR to me. Hope you agree. Regards, kashmiri TALK 20:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it was almost certainly a D.MSc. That's not a Ph.D. I think his academic credentials are questioned (see Orac / David Gorski's writing on the subject), and there is a difference between MD and PhD (MD is not a research doctorate, as such, at least not in the same sense) but it was of course long enough ago that his lack of a significant research career since would be much more relevant. I'd be inclined to say he was awarded a doctorate, which is completely accurate. I don't like "earned" because it's a value judgment (see the Bogdanov affair). Well, there's some relevance I guess: his claims to a Ph.D. are clearly false since the university did not award them at that time. That indicates playing fast and loose with facts, but frankly we hardly need more evidence of that with this guy! Guy (Help!) 22:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
JzG: I am sorry I have no idea what D.MSc. is, that's not an acronym I am recognising, Google search does not help, either. The only tertiary degrees in Poland are doctorate in medical science - a professional title equivalent to British (and American?) MD; and "simple" doctorate - an academic title broadly equivalent to PhD in non-medical subjects. I am fine with replacing PhD with MD in the article if you prefer, although I don't see this would change much due to incompatibility between Polish/European and American degrees. To the best of my knowledge, "earning a degree" is a valid phrase in English, although I agree it is slightly idiomatic - can be changed to "received a degree" or "was awarded a degree" if you prefer. BTW, what further career is expected after a doctorate? kashmiri TALK 22:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Doctorate in medical science is D.MSc, in the sources I've read. For a Ph. D. A normal career would include numerous publications in reliable journals; Burzynski has a few case studies. His output indicates a non-research tertiary degree. His career, by contrast, strongly suggests a rapacious quack, sadly. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
So would D.MSc. be the same as Doctorate in Medicine (MD)? Regular publishing is "normal" only when a person is employed by a school or university and a specific number of publications per year form a part of their contract (unfortunately, that's how it is these days). Those who run their own businesses do not have such obligations and can publish whenever they want. Is it only me who does not find it strange? Also, making judgements about people's character based on their CVs goes slightly too far IMHO. kashmiri TALK 23:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

GURJAR[edit]

Mr. Kashmiri, Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Gurjar has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. ,,,,Your recent editing history at Gurjar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse. YOu can not judge the difference between right and wrong. Samrat Mihir Bhoja image was displayed on Gurjar since last 4 years with proper references and lots of debate already done in this regard. You can not change images by feeling yourself a right work. welcome for debate and argue for present references. Lots of efforts has been madeto improve this Gurjar Wikipedia with Editor like Chhora, Ashok Harsana, AP Singh, all are prominent historian and have better knowledge than you. Are you reverting yourself or i forward the request to admin for your behavior. Gurjeshwar (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

'Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Do not remove the authentic images of Gurjar personalities and contents from Gurjar wikipedia. Please debate before to edit this article. This is not the matter of choice that you previous version is much better. Samrat Mihir Bhoja image was displayed on Gurjar Wiki since last 4 years. Then why you are reverting this without telling a perfect reasons. This is objectionable. Thanks Gurjeshwar (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Gurjeshwar: The images were removed by another editor whose justification I found sound. On the other hand, you offered no reason when you undid the changes, except that the fact images have been there for a long time, and V Patel is a known person. See, this is an encyclopaedia, it is constantly edited and improved by various editors who have full right to add and remove images. Other editors felt that the images violated WP principles, so they removed them. I second that, and you should comply. You are not the owner of that article. Regards, kashmiri TALK 13:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
{{|'''Kashmiri'''}}:: I & other writers was regularly observing your and other writers activity specially on Gurjar article. You have also removed the images of Mihir Bhoja and Sardar Vallabh Bhaiu Patel. Mr. Gurjeshwar efforts to improve this article seems right as he has provided many citation in support of contents. At Wikipedia, information should not be biased and manipulative, as you are trying with other writers and convinced the admin for '''3RR''' error for Mr. Gurjeshwar. You may not be convinced but majority of writers and viewers are convinced with citation in Gurjar wiki. So i request you not to remove any content and images in future.

RoyalGurjar (talk) 13:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Indicscripts[edit]

FYI, WP:INDICSCRIPTS only applies to 1) Indicscripts (not Urdu / Persio-Arabic), 2) WikiProject India only topics (Not WikiProject Pakistan topics or overlapping topics). Clarification here. Please do not remove native scripts from topics that are also under the scope of other projects and are subject to a much wider predominant, unaltered, consensus. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

TopGun: OK, thanks for the link. When restoring scripts to the article, please add Ladakhi, Shina and Balti - languages officially spoken in Kargil district; and Kashmiri (written in Nastaliq, but feel free to add Nagari) - the official language of the Kashmir Valley. Also, could you correct the Hindi transliteration because it was wrong? It will also be good to remove languages from Kargil district because unlike Kargil war it does not fall within the scope of other projects than India. Or, was it "consensus" that they stayed there so long? Regards, kashmiri TALK 14:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
No problem. I don't really have any view about the district article. If no other Wikiproject is interested in working on it, obviously it would come under the indicscripts consensus and you can remove it (if it stayed there long was because no body wanted to do the effort to remove it). About the languages, although I can understand 90% Hindi since it is mutually intelligible with Urdu, it is not at all comprehensible to me in its written form, so I guess you will have to ask an Indian editor. I do not speak the local Kashmiri languages either. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • J&K, another instance.. left a talkpage message on article. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    @TopGun: Nope, disagree, and revisited the discussion again. Read again: the discussion was about "India-related articles" and "Pakistan-related articles", and not about Wikiproject tags. India-only related geographic names - that is, localities which have been only on Indian territory - should thus follow WP:INDICSCRIPT guidelines - irrespective whether other projects (like WP:Pakistan or WP:Central Asia) express interest in the article and tag them. Neither Kargil nor J&K (per definition in article) was ever in Pakistan, so WP:INDICSCRIPTS definitely applies there. Also interesting why Urdu spelling should be added when Urdu is only one of three official languages of the state, and spoken as mother tongue by a tiny minority? kashmiri TALK 02:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hamza Yusuf[edit]

Dear Kashmiri, On what basis are you reverting?!? Are the quote and explanation not valid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirriasrar (talkcontribs) 00:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:CONSENSUS. Other editors explained to you there (Talk:Hamza Yusuf), so I see no point of elaborating any further. kashmiri TALK 00:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Citation Issues[edit]

I think I fixed the citations that were incorrect. Let me know on what page I messed up and I will fix them too!

Sadkins1953 (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD[edit]

The lead is supposed to summarize the article. Have expanded amyotrophic lateral sclerosis so that it does a better job doing this. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Doc James I regret that you just reverted my work. LEDE should only summarise the most important points, and not everything what is below. I think the history of the discovery of ALS is of little relevance to the describing what ALS is and should be reduced to one short sentence at most ("The disorder was first described by ... in the year ..."). Debate on motor neurone disease should be definitely taken out of LEDE, it's confusing at best.
I considered certain phrases wrong/misleading and I don't really understand why you reintroduced them. For example, "directly inherited from parents" is not very fortunate (because this sort of puts the fault on parents; I'd prefer talking about inherited mutations or hereditary causes without specifying from whom - mutations are usually passed down several generations; also, de novo mutations do occur where ancestors are not to blame); besides, is it possible to inherit a condition from parents other than "directly"? Then, saying "there is no clear cause" is an existential statement - correctly, we can only say that causes are not currently known/identified rather than "they are not there". You have again spread natural history between two distant paragraphs (and same to epidemiology and pathophysiology), removing logical flow that I tried to add to the lede. Sorry I can't sound more appreciating. Regards, kashmiri TALK 22:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes some good points. Have adjusted further. The lead is supposed to be about 3 or 4 paragraphs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Warning[edit]

Please note that Sultan-ul-Arifeen is about a title, which was used by many people, and not about any particular person. Your continuous forcing Hamza Makhdoom, He is a Kashmiri Saint and you are a Kashmiri person, your are trying to specifies this title for him, that is why you again and again tagging it, I consider all three in my edit, if you know about other saints using this title enter them here with references Mrashid364 (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be facing something fishy[edit]

I don't think we've encountered each other before, but I couldn't help but notice that you seem to be having some trouble. You may have noticed that the Special:Contributions/Mrashid364, Special:Contributions/Ayesha_Nb and Special:Contributions/Nainntara accounts all seem to have been created within two days of each other while Special:Contributions/Punjabsind82 was created a few days ago solely to support them. Special:Contributions/JugniSQ is a few months older but is editing the same exact articles.
Have you considered looking into this further and seeing if there is any meat puppetry involved? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@MezzoMezzo: Thanks, really appreciated someone noticed that as well as I was about to give up. I would add User:Neyn here, I am more than sure there is a small sock farm here, although my feeling is it's not a single editor. User:Mrashid364 is the oldest account, started in July 2012. Neyn, started in May 2014, has been a sleeper since this September until I touched Sultan ul Arifeen which was "his" article. I then proposed AfD for a couple of articles - and then a whole farm of sock- or meatpuppets appeared, lead by Mrashid364 alternating with Neyn. Don't know, I sort of gave up, I don't want to waste time on edit wars. An SPI would be a fair thing to do, although I am not sure I feel like going through all the history and justifying it for admins... Any thoughts? Regards, kashmiri TALK 19:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm somewhat busy today, but I am willing to devote time to this tomorrow if you promise not to give up. I have no prior involvement in this but I've seen this kind of nonsense a lot over the years and it bothers me greatly. Wikipedia is an incredible site and people have no right to try to cash in on it, which is what I'm seeing. I can do the compiling of both the evidence of meat/sockpuppetry as well as the personal attacks, as some of the accounts are now going on to random talk pages and basically just talking bad about you (without letting you know, of course). Making statements such as mine aren't to be taken lightly, but I am 99% certain that there is something inappropriate going on with these accounts. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
@MezzoMezzo: Thanks man! Over years, I have also reported a fair number of sockpuppetry cases, some small, but also unbelievably large sock farms, numbering hundreds of socks. That's tedious work, but at least one learns to spot such users instantly. This one looks pretty easy, as the socks even admitted it somewhere. If you file a SPI, let me know please so that I can add my comments. Otherwise, let me know and might find time and energy in a few days to do it. BTW, did you see there is a new arrival in the herd: User:Dannywiki1? Already trying to mess up in Makhdoom. Regards, kashmiri TALK 17:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
He just managed to get Hamza Makhdoom deleted by an unsuspecting admin. kashmiri TALK 18:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Talkback: Nils von Barth: Invert sugar[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Kashmiri. You have new messages at Nbarth's talk page.
Message added 00:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Elsevier access[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Kashmiri. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Chris Troutman (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Lockmaster1 (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Lockmaster1 (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Reply To Your Claim[edit]

Reply To Your Claim After my research on your edit history, I can confidently state that the edit war actually begun with you since 31st December 2014 initially at the article Sultan-ul-Arifeen. This edit war was not limited to one page but spread amonsgt other articles. This edit war was in fact not only against a school of thought but also against a holy saint, publication, organization, etc. Let me clarify, thousands of followers exist for any school of thought and by targeting these articles, you targetted a school of thought and hence, its followers. If you think, it is easy to let go of such negative steps which you have taken, it is not. The followers would obviously respond to your arguments and it’s upto them how each one responds. This trend is spreading quickly amongst the followers of that school of thought.

Also, User:kashmiri, User:MezzoMezzo, User:Shii and User:Раціональне анархіст you all have teamed up for deleting and placing negative arguments for a particular set of articles. This can also go against you can be declared as Sockpuppets. Editing on merit is acceptable and editing on bias is not acceptable and in fact you can be blocked for edit warring.

Hence, I advise you to take a step back from all this edit war which you have started and save yourself from the energy of editing articles about whch you should have nothing to do due to your lack of knowledge with regard to the topics. Wikipedia is free for all to edit and the followers of any school of thought will never accept people editing or changing their articles as per their own likes and dislikes. I am waiting for your positive response.

W.white273 (talk) 11:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@W.white273: You have only listed four of like-minded editors? What about the checkusers that investigated your socks, and all the admins that oversaw the process? You know how much time so many people had to spend on defending the quality of this project from your disruptive editing?
Wikipedia is free to edit but it has its set of WP:RULES that must be adhered to - and you have edited in breach of these rules. Not everything is suitable to be placed on Wikipedia - please read what Wikipedia is not. I think, Neyn, there is no point to discuss with you any further because you clearly don't want to read or understand the policies of this website, despite being told and sanctioned many times. kashmiri TALK 12:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Removed content which did not have credible source[edit]

Hi, This is to let you know that I removed content which did not have any credible source. Please keep Wikipedia free from any false information.

Thanks & Cheers. ASimpleHumanBeing (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Section from Wikipedia removed[edit]

Dear Kashmiri,

A certain someone has a write up concerning his past that is deeply affecting him today. Please allow me to make changes to his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.133.32.3 (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@221.133.32.3: Sorry, I am not getting it. Could you be clearer please? kashmiri TALK 10:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Help[edit]

Hi, I want to work with files on Wikipedia. So I need some links as work fields and guide pages that can help me in editing files. I thought you being the file mover can help me in this matter thats why I messaged you.

thanks Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 07:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Elsevier[edit]

Hi. I wanted to update you on the status of your Elsevier account. I sent the first list to Elsevier on 12 January. Elsevier reports that they will be e-mailing applicants next week with an access code, which will start your use of the resource. I appreciate your patience with this process. Feel free to contact me with any feedback or questions you have about Elsevier access. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

You are welcomed to add comments and improve and discuss proposed changes in Criticism of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the article has reliable sources unlike the previous one. I want the article to include in wikipedia after the discussion. The discussion is taking place at Talk:Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

Thanks. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 11:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)