User talk:Jrkso

Welcome

Hello, Jrkso! 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 loving 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. Happy editing! yousaf465' 05:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments 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 Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism 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 Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

October 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to 28 October 2009 Peshawar bombing, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. yousaf465' 05:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well Jrkso I also now it was meant for poor people, but no source say so. I think you didn't read the welcome msg carefully.--yousaf465' 07:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say the bombing was meant for poor people. I'm saying that the Mina Bazaar in Peshawar is a general shopping place for the low income people. The Rich people of Peshawar do not shop there, mostly the poors do. I think this is very important to mention so readers understand a little about this bazaar, where the bombing incident took place.--Jrkso (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Jrkso; I really appreciate your desire to improve Wikipedia. However, everything must be verified; an allegation like that, even if it seems like common sense, needs to have a source. So far, sources have only said it's female-exclusive, nothing else.

Also, I removed the bit about winter shopping; only one woman was stated to be doing so for sure. We can't assume that they all were as a result. Please don't re-add it unless you have a better source. Thank you, Master of Puppets 21:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Jrkso; I think now you have understood. I was also refering to the Meena Bazaar.--yousaf465' 02:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Master of Puppets, I have to find a source explaining that it's the start of winter in Peshawar, Pakistan, and add that to the article? Is this the rule of Wikipedia? Also, do I have to get a source for each person who died explaining they were doing winter shopping? This is ridiculous!--Jrkso (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No, but just because it's the start of winter doesn't mean everybody is doing their winter shopping - avoid making such assumptions if you don't have sources. And not exactly, but you'd have to have a source stating that a majority or so were doing said type of shopping; otherwise it's original research. Master of Puppets 03:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you making up your own rules? I've provided a reliable source (Karen DeYoung and Haq Nawaz Khan of The Washington Post) which indicated that women were doing winter shopping.

“ At Lady Reading Hospital, a student named Ahmed Jan, 25, said a relative of his had been killed in the bombing. He said she was a teacher who had gone to the market to buy winter clothes for her two children.[1] ”

People do winter shopping before the cold winter weather begins, usually one month in advance, and in the case of Peshawar the cold season starts now. You probably live in India where you don't see winter, but in many places of the world people know what winter shopping means. Why did you remove the source? Why don't you use the talk page instead of removing information from articles? This isn't good.--Jrkso (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Look at your quote again; they're talking about one teacher. One teacher buying winter clothes does not mean everybody there is doing the same thing.

As for the talk page; there's no need to use the talk page here, because this is something that we have many policies against. Even though I know that what you're saying is probably true, and you know what you're saying is true, there's no way to verify it (unless you have a source that explicitly states that now is when everybody does their winter shopping in Peshawar). See also Wikipedia:Original research. Cheers, Master of Puppets 03:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Who do you want to verify this to? You want to verify with sources that it's the start of winter in Peshawar? Or that people in Peshawar go to markets to shop there? Again, this is very ridiculous. I know what OR is. The fact is I've provided a very reliable source (above) clearly mentioning that women were doing winter shopping and even you agreed. So what's the problem then? Why are you so much against this? It's also very ridiculous to ask for about 100 sources, each one mentioning each victim what they were shopping. The information I've added said "majority of the victims were women and children doing winter shopping". All the sources say the site of the blast was an exclusive-for-women shopping area. The sources also say majority of the victims were women and children. So why are you bringing this Wikipedia:No original research to me?--Jrkso (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, let's go over this again. Just because one woman was doing her winter shopping does not mean that they all were. Yes, casualties were mostly women and children. Yes, it is the start of winter in Peshawar. Does that mean that they were all doing winter shopping? No. That's a link you can't draw without a credible source, or else it's original research. Trust me, this is exactly how policy is supposed to work.

Hopefully that makes sense! Cheers, Master of Puppets 20:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody said all the people were doing winter shopping. You want me to write in the article that one single woman was doing her winter shopping? Just because you are an administrator doesn't mean you're always right? You are again removing sourced information after I told you to please stop. What is your problem?--Jrkso (talk) 01:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This is kinda weird. You're agreeing with me, but I don't think you know yet.

You mentioned exactly what I don't want; for you to mention that she's doing her winter shopping. Even if the sources mentioned that, that's not very important. However, writing that even some of them were doing the same thing is, again, original research.

That being said, I'm OK with the most recent version, as you're clearly specifying there's only one person acting in the stated manner. Now, readers can draw the connection themselves. Thank you for correcting it! Cheers, Master of Puppets 03:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think now you understand my intention, I only wanted readers to get a little idea that it was sort of a busy time, more shoppers than usual due to the coming of winter season. Thanks for helping.--Jrkso (talk) 07:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem! I'm sorry that we misunderstood each other for a time; I am pretty confusing sometimes. All is well now, though. Cheers! Master of Puppets 07:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Xlinkbot

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Zabiullah Mujahid has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCptFrPZZG0 (matching the regex rule \byoutube\.com). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. Video links are also strongly deprecated by our guidelines for external links, partly because they're useless to people with slow internet connections.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion on Afghanistan

FYI -

I just formally asked for a third opinion on the Afghanisan article.

Thanks,

Danieldis47 (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

War in Afghanistan 2001–present

Your views on the latest draft for the section Afghanistan#War_in_Afghanistan_2001.E2.80.93present would be valuable. The discussion is atTalk:Afghanistan#Proposal:_Section_War_in_Afghanistan_2001.E2.80.93present--Work permit (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Afghanistan

You might like to contribute to this : Talk:Afghanistan#Section_title_-_War.2FNATO_Mission.2FUS_Mission_2001-present

I'm not strongly invested either way, but I do feel it makes some sort of sense to have the section title match the article it links to as Main Article:  Begoon^talk 00:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right about that but the main article "War in Afghanistan 2001-present" can be re-named, and I think we may do that as well. The militaries involved in this country call it "NATO mission", and you can see that in many news reports. It started as a mission although the US leaders called it "War on Terror" but the war on terror was not intended for Afghanistan, it was a global war. The Afghan situation is a mission, to defend the nation from militants (criminals) and help rebuild its institutions and provide aid, and etc. When you call this "war" then it ignores all the other things that NATO is doing but only concentrate on the fighting between Taliban militants and NATO forces.--Jrkso (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I answered on the article talk page - seems we agree :)  Begoon^talk 01:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of twenty-four hours for edit-warring on Prostitution in Afghanistan. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. -- tariqabjotu 14:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Unblock

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Jrkso (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I don't think I violated the 3RR so why am I blocked? Just because someone disagrees with another editor that's considered edit-warring? I explained my every edit on the talk page but everytime I came to inspect the article another user reverted my edits and so I reported him but for doing this I got blocked. I don't deserve to be blocked for this.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I don't think I violated the 3RR so why am I blocked? Just because someone disagrees with another editor that's considered edit-warring? I explained my every edit on the talk page but everytime I came to inspect the article another user reverted my edits and so I reported him but for doing this I got blocked. I don't deserve to be blocked for this. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I don't think I violated the 3RR so why am I blocked? Just because someone disagrees with another editor that's considered edit-warring? I explained my every edit on the talk page but everytime I came to inspect the article another user reverted my edits and so I reported him but for doing this I got blocked. I don't deserve to be blocked for this. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I don't think I violated the 3RR so why am I blocked? Just because someone disagrees with another editor that's considered edit-warring? I explained my every edit on the talk page but everytime I came to inspect the article another user reverted my edits and so I reported him but for doing this I got blocked. I don't deserve to be blocked for this. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}