User talk:TheSawTooth

Welcome!

Hello, TheSawTooth! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Faizan 17:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

ERA

Hi, I reverted your sweeping change to this article for a number of reasons, here are a few:

• Blog posts are not suitable sources
• Press releases are not suitable sources
• An article about a company which recycles does not need descriptions of what recycling is or general concepts of recycling - that information is provided via wikilinks
• Despite your edit to the talk page you clearly don't have a NPOV, expanding everything but the controversy section greatly and editing only this one topic is not 'neutral'
• Using weasel words like 'apparently'
• You synthesised refs discussing recycling in general with the ERAs mission statement
• Including needlessly detailed information in contravention of the general manual of style

And so on. I think you should probably avoid editing in this area which you appear to have a close connection with until you're more familiar with Wikipedias rules and guidelines. Cheers, Nikthestunned 09:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I move to dispute your disruption of my fresh attempt to rewrite. I have no connection with this company whatsoever. I have not used any unnecessary positive language for subject or weasel words as you say. Also I move to dispute your claim of sources I have taken from news papers. I request you to read that I have also expanded controversy section much by verifying sources and I here by request you to read the source that is referred as my conclusion is written after reading that. Have you read it or are you just disputing without doing that? I removed one blog source. I advise you not to remove anything such massive in a manner that does not suit civilized persons and let me finish my genuine editing. You are welcome to ask for corrections on subject's talk page or to me but do not disrupt!!! --TheSawTooth (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I repeat, I have no connection to the subject. I do not even live on the same side of the globe. So if you want to help me, point by point, case by case, ask me to make corrections and I will try my level best as you can see the effort I am doing to alter this subject which was edited by parties from different angles of the subject. I am impartial. In good faith, I have done another NPOV correction of my edit. Mindless approach is not civil --TheSawTooth (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

A warm welcome to Wikipedia! Faizan 17:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi and thank you ! --TheSawTooth (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	Hi Sawtooth....you have reverted one of my edits Operation Zarb-e-Azb ...(involving cia and u.s) which i think is wrong ... Operation zarb-e-azb is PART of the ongoing U.S. War on Terror. It would be nice of you if you read the article .. War on Terror & Operation Zarb-e-Azb....anyways thanks Saadkhan12345 (talk) 06:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I move to dispute your revision because they are Afghan militants if the reference is saying that they are from that country. You can not defend your country on Wikipedia you have to go and take real action if a fact like this is upsetting you. Wikipedia is only trying to report journalism. I do not think it was wrong as I did not remove other militants. --TheSawTooth (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

first of all you removed CIA DRONE from the article...Im assuming you dont know shit about operation. If you scroll down theres a whole section on drone strikes taking out more than 50 militants. Secondly, im not from afghanistan...Im from pakistan. Third...theres a difference between AFGHAN militants and MILITANTS from Afghanistan. last but not least Operation Zarb-e-azb is based in North Waziristan District......as for the cross border attacks they are not Part of the operation...The main mission of the operation is clearing out north waziristan...quote "against foreign and local terrorists who were hiding in sanctuaries in North Waziristan tribal region."(http://www.dawn.com/news/1112909/pakistan-launches-zarb-e-azb-military-operation-in-n-waziristan) just because theres something with sources doesnt mean its part of the article. and its funny how you keep on saying sources when one of the border attack happened in Lower Dir...which is a district far away from North Waziristan.Saadkhan12345 (talk) 04:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

When you are tired of your rudeness you can use common sense about militants. Do not implement your opinion on me. --TheSawTooth (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

lol common sense...the cross border attacks are not related to the operation and stop trying to play the blame game...u were rude too. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Then why you gave me barnstar? --TheSawTooth (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

i think you needs to understand that the "cross border" attack are by Tehreek-i-italiban...and that according to intelligence sources. so stop taking blind side .. http://tacstrat.com/content/index.php/2014/06/13/securing-the-durand-line/ Saadkhan12345 (talk) 06:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding my view and your view

I have removed my own view which was (CIA drone strikes should be added in belligerents) ...and your view that afghan militants" should added in belligerents. I think we should resolves the dispute on talk page first. Please refrain from making edits regarding these two until the dispute is resolved on talk page peacefully. Thank you. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 13:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not have any view on CIA drones. That tag was removed because you always add it in same edit. That is not compromise. --TheSawTooth (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

COIN

Please don't remove the connected template [1] while you are under investigation at WP:COIN, thank you Widefox; talk 21:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Do not put tag on me without proof. --TheSawTooth (talk) 08:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Widefox; talk 22:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

OK --TheSawTooth (talk) 08:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Using a source twice on one page

Hi. Just a quick point re: sources:

First instance of a reference: <ref name="fooSite">{{cite web|url=http://foo.com |site=Foo |author=Foo}}</ref>

Next (and any further) instance(s): <ref name="fooSite"/>

Means you don't need to duplicate them =) Nikthestunned 17:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I am still learning alot and reading your concerns to reply. --TheSawTooth (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Jason Minter for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jason Minter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Minter until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Adam in MO Talk 03:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

OK. --TheSawTooth (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "stalking"

My friend sorry for the "undo" on your talk page and so...I do not wish to give you a hard time on wikipedia but regarding the accusation that I am stalking you...well it would be quite interesting to note your history regarding Edit Warfare with numerous users on wikipedia. I merely wish that you solve the dispute through consensus. Your recent editting suggest that you first "undo" changes of other users and thn push in your own POV and thn try to talk it out which is against the rules of wikipedia. For more Info read here: Wikipedia:Competence is required and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Thank you Saadkhan12345 (talk) 10:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You revised it because I revised you on Operation Zarb-e-Azb. Do not attack me because my history is not such. Having dispute is normal on wikis. --TheSawTooth (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I revised you because of POV pushing. You should maintain normally let the current version stay, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 12:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not POV pushing. A user was following me so I revised him and told him. Now you are following. You are not involved in dispute so what is your problem? Stick to operation zarb-e-azb please it is not personal. --TheSawTooth (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I was aware of your dispute with Saadkhan12345, which is offtopic on the talk page Talk:Jason Minter, discuss edits not editors there - see WP:TALKPAGE. Equally, Saadkhan12345 should refrain from spreading disagreement from Operation Zarb-e-Azb over to another article.

TheSawTooth: reflect on this WP:BATTLEGROUND disruption, read WP:IDHT. Widefox; talk 12:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Good. Widefox meet Saadkhan, Saadkhan meet widefox. You can both stop crossing over different topics now for me and directly editwar with each other. I am not editing Jason Minter until deletion debate is over. --TheSawTooth (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

19 November 2014

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

ok --TheSawTooth (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Some points

1. Please withdraw the inappropriate {{edit protected}} until discussion' takes place (read the very-template-you-added for instructions)
2. "Nikthestunned is forcing to keep old revision of ERA topic" is completely wrong. I just don't want YOUR revision, which consensus also rejected. I'm fully OK it being expanded in a proper manner, I'm just not sure it CAN be as there aren't very many reliable sources mentioning it - it's quite a simple concept really, if no-one writes about it, the article is never going to be particularly large.
3. "Read his talkpage he is in disagreement in general. I will write again and he will say one word "no"." - I'm sorry, did I not provide a review of every single little problem I had with the article, exactly as you requested? That's hours of my life I'll never get back, and for that I get this response? If you're making useful, constructive edits I'll happily respond. It's reams and reams of you not understanding Wikipedia policy, and continuing on your unknown crusade, which I won't respond to.

Nikthestunned 10:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Editwarring means you are forcing. I also gave full response but new messages on your talkpage are disappointing. I am making one last attempt to solve your concern of my draft and make it neutral. --TheSawTooth (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

How can I edit war by myself?! You're just as guilty of that as I am so please stop accusing me of it. Nikthestunned 13:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

So if we are both guilty and we are both talking on talkpage as well it should be resolved. Let us not make accusations. I am typing response to content to resolve it. I do not want to get into personal dispute. --TheSawTooth (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Replied

Hello, TheSawTooth. You have new messages at Mar4d's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Saadkhan12345 (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested dispute resolution

Hi there. DR/N can be used to file a request at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. - a process for resolving a dispute over article content between two or more editors. It is unable to address disputes primarily concerning user conduct - they should be discussed with the users involved first, and failing that directed here.

• In brief: dispute resolution should be used when you:
• Have a dispute with another editor and need help resolving it
• Are willing to discuss the issues in a calm and civil manner
• Are open to the idea of compromising with the other editors to resolve the dispute

This process can:

• Help provide suggestions on content
• Frame discussions and offer support for parties that want to work towards a compromise

This process cannot:

• Block other users from editing (either everywhere or specific pages)
• Remove content that you don't like from articles
• Force another editor to do something
• Address disputes that are currently under discussion somewhere else (such as Requests for Comment, Mediation or Arbitration). Saadkhan12345 (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Operation Zarb-e-Azb. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Dispute resolution noticeboard

• Look its important to get your view summarized here since you are involved in the conflict. Please have a look and do not ignore so we can reach an agreement. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

DR/N

look SawTooth...your currently engaged in a conflict on Operation zarb-e-azb and it would be appreciated if you filled out the Summary of dispute by TheSawTooth in the DR/N. If you willing to ignore this and not solve this through consensus thn plz stay away from reverting etc on the article. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 08:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• Krazy horse is reported by Faizan as sockpuppet master. I am waiting for investigation it is on hold. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

you can wait for that and also fill out summary. its going to be closed in 2 days if you don't fill it out. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

It is going to be closed if Krazy gets blocked. Investigation will give report tomorrow it is ok. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Its not going to be closed...krzyhorse is not the only one involved. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Neat

Your signature reminds me of another. ;) -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 05:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Hehe I copied it from your help desk message. Did not know we will ever meet. You do not mind, right? :D ---TheSawTooth (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It's fine, you can keep it if you want. :) However, I may advise to change the colors a bit - if we ever are both in a conversation (like now), the signatures may get a bit confusing. I got the color codes from this website, so you may be able to find different background colors there. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 22:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes it makes sense. Thank you :) ---TheSawTooth (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Also, by the way - that green looks really nice :) -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

:D ---TheSawTooth (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electronic Recycling Association

Just a quick FYI. As per my comments during our discussion and after much research / source-scouring, I didn't find the company notable. I withdrew from discussions partly for this reason, partly as I didn't see the benefit to anyone for us to continue. As such, I've nominated for deletion now that the article isn't being heavily edited and we'll see what happens there. Cheers Nikthestunned 16:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

ok ---TheSawTooth (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - IPA

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

What is this I am not your enemy ! Take it EASY! Do not try to sanction me! I have not done anything wrong what is this warning for? EXPLAIN? ---TheSawTooth (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing more than a formal notification. It tells that if you are disengaging from WP:CONSENSUS, making disruptive edits, and carrying out any other offenses in the articles that are about India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, it may lead to sanctions like topic ban, blocks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I am engaging talkpage you are wrong. You deleted so much data from page! You are making intention of sanctioning me on making corrections? War is over my friend we are not enemies we are just encyclopedia users. Do not make it matter of pride it is just reference saying success. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)