User talk: Kashmiri
|Kashmiri is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon.|
|This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.|
|This is Kashmiri's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Kashmiri.|
- 1 Per WP:LEAD
- 2 Warning
- 3 You appear to be facing something fishy
- 4 Talkback: Nils von Barth: Invert sugar
- 5 Elsevier access
- 6 Reply To Your Claim
- 7 Removed content which did not have credible source
- 8 Section from Wikipedia removed
- 9 Help
- 10 Elsevier
- 11 Hi
- 12 Western Sahara in List of country calling codes
- 13 Talkback
- 14 Orphaned non-free image File:Yorkshire Bank.svg
- 15 March 2015
- 16 Request for feedback
- 17 Map: Durrani Empire
- 18 Nice to meet
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)
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
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
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) 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
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: 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
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.
Section from Wikipedia removed
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 126.96.36.199 (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- @188.8.131.52: Sorry, I am not getting it. Could you be clearer please? kashmiri TALK 10:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
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.
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)
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.
Western Sahara in List of country calling codes
I removed the Flag of Polisario from the List of country calling codes because the status of Western Sahara is not defined and the territory de jure does not belong neither to Polisario nor to Morocco. The neutral form is to put the name of the territory only. Wimmiden (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Wimmiden: The flag of Western Sahara is controlled by Template:Country data Western Sahara, you are more than welcome to raise the issue there - but be aware that the matter has been discussed in length at Country data Western Sahara, so I don't see much chances your proposal will meet with much success. I am reverting for now. kashmiri TALK 16:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Yorkshire Bank.svg
Thanks for uploading File:Yorkshire Bank.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Burzynski Clinic. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version 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. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Request for feedback
Some time back you placed COI and peacock tags at the George M. Church article, for clear reasons. I am wondering if you might return briefly to that article, and assist in a small way. We have persuaded Profs Church and Wu to edit via Talk suggestions, rather than directly, and this is working out. Some of their suggestions are taken, but many are not/cannot be, and they seem to be growing in the understanding of the process, and of WP policy expectations. For this set of positives steps—6 weeks of working alongside, without direct COI edits—I took the step to remove the COI tag today.
I would next like to begin to address the peacock issues, and here is where I would like to ask your assistance. Could you take a little time, whatever you can spare, and start a Talk section at that article, and begin a list of peacock issues to be investigated? A format like:
- Section XYZ:
- "here is some text wherein I call myself the 'King of the World' "
would be very helpful, because I can come in and, one-by-one, fix them, and indicate having done so with Done. Could you give that article a bit of time, listing places where you see peacock text? Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi @Leprof 7272:, thanks, I will gladly go through the article. I will only have time towards the end of this week, would that be all right? kashmiri TALK 08:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Map: Durrani Empire
The map of the empire in the peak time exactly the same as the current international border which is not correct. Also, according to some references, Mashhad was under control of Shahrukh Afshar until the conquer by Qajar Dynasty.    
Nice to meet
- @Ihardlythinkso: Sure! I might not be able to look into this closer for a few days - busy time - but will try respond asap. kashmiri TALK 08:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)