User talk:Anonymous editor

Feel free to leave me a message below as long as it's legitimate to Wikipedia. I mostly reply to my messages on the the talk page of the user who left the message, but sometimes you may find copies of my larger discussions with users here too.

Irishpunktom 3RR violation

Perhaps they are ganging up on him, and though I try not to take sides, I do agree that Karl Meier may be gaming the system with his continual 3RR complaints against other users. But the problem is, as long as Irishpunktom continues to violate 3RR, he will be blocked continually. If Irishpunktom stops at 3 reverts, he won't be blocked- that's the simple truth of it. Ral315 W_S 20:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

User:StephenCox

Hi, did you give a barnstar to this user? This morning he popped one on his page, purporting to be from you, in recognition of his "countless hours of work on SouthAsia-related articles." Trouble is, his current account has no edit history going back more than six days. I checked your history on user pages and couldn't find any instances where you awarded anyone else a barnstar for that reason. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism

I saw your edit summary: "Kidnappings and murders of one person is not terrorism, also please source your information on this organization". How is that not terrorism? Wasn't Daniel Pearl a victim of terrorism? freestylefrappe 21:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, we can not call murder "terrorism" can we? That way whenever someone is murdered every second, will that be called "terrorism"? Usually terrorism refers to massive attacks on large populations in order to acheive a large political goal. A kidnap murder of a journalist doesn't really do much. Well, I guess it could be some sort of minor terrorism, but there is no widespread terrorizing. I don't know whether it should be readded.

I think it is fair that you started that article, but please watch out because it will become biased really fast; that is the case on most articles dealing with South-Asian issues. Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Deepack has left you a message on my talk page. freestylefrappe 22:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, the murder of Daniel Pearl didnt have any major political impact!! Give me a break. Islamabad came under immense pressure from USA during the entire unfortunate episode. Terrorism is an act which creates terror among the people and that particular episode was no exception. Pearl's murder was not just any other murder. So many people from countries supporting the US-led coalition are kidnapped in Iraq and then murdered. Isnt that terrorism. Why is this one an exception. Sometimes yr comments make me wonder whether u r from US or Pakistan! --{{IncMan|talk}} 22:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism is an act which creates terror among the people. Yes, which people were exactly terrorized? Like I said it is one of those things which does have political influence but still does not have widespread terrorizing. I don't see how Daniel Pearl's murder was any different from shootings by people here in the US. Thousands of people are kidnapped and plenty are murdered on the streets by drug gangs, by racial problems, etc. Very little is different. For all we know Dan Pearl could have been murdered just because of his race. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I think I should be posting this message on yr talkpage. Hope freestylefrappe doesnt mind! Daniel Pearl was not killed because he was white, he was murdered because he was an american! You shld be knowing this! Those who killed him were no ordinary murderers or paid killers. By killing him, Pakisatn-based terrorist had given a clear indication to US, stay out of Afghanistan or more innocent civilians die. Where were you when this entire episode happened. --{{IncMan|talk}} 22:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Exactly deepak. But how many people were terrorized? It may have had a political goals but you said Terrorism is an act which creates terror among the people. A single person killed is not a lot of people. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

People were terrorised. After the incident there was a sharp decline in the number of tourists travelling to Pakistan. The way a Wall Street Journal reporter was brutually tortured and murdered terrorised me atleast! --{{IncMan|talk}} 23:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Deepak, that is getting way out of hand. Nice try though. :) Were not talking emotions here. I didn't say there wasn't an impact. I said there wasn't widespread terrorism. People cry when people die, but does that mean that everytime a gang member is murdered it is terrorism? Any single person's death is not terrorism according to the definition you gave me. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks AE. Same for you. I'll drop you an email. Cheers -- Svest 23:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Ramadan Mubarak

Best to you and yours, brother. BrandonYusufToropov 01:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

¡Feliz Ramadán!

Assalaamu alaykum brother, May Allah SWT make this Ramadan a time for rememberance of those less fortunate. --JuanMuslim 02:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Pl. read sources

As I said, you have not read the sources, but you just want to continue editing. The Kargil War article was already sourced even before you edited. The tone may have been slightly POV, but If you can't read all the references, then please quit instead of accusing others of not providing the source. It reflects poorly on your ability to read. Also I landed up in articles like Terrorism in Pakistan because User:freestylefrappe requested me so. Just because you made the first couple of edits which I also edited, does not mean I'm following you.

Your edits are masked as "minor" whilst removing whole statements which even Wikipedia considers as as bad practice. Minor refers to punctuations and copyedits that don't distort the meaning or facts. pl. remember that before marking future edits as minor. If you think you are the only one who is involved in reverting vandalism, removing copyvio articles etc. then take a look around because atleast half the regd. users help out with those things, including myself.

And do you STILL think that rediff.com is a blog or forum? It may be an Indian site, but as I repeat (in case you might not have read as is your habit) that the news was syndicated by the PTI (Press Trust of India). Most of the sources I've added in articles are from neutral or third party sites with a few exceptions like this. And yes, I was the one who developed half the content initially in Terrorism in India, so unlike you I don't have to hide from the facts, Indian or otherwise. And yes there are still some issues of POV in some Indian articles. But not all, since many India related articles are featured articles. Your accusation that sources are inherently biased is childish. A glance at the sources in Kargil would reveal that more than half are from Pakistan and that I was the one who added links to Pakistani newspapers while you do nothing but crib without contributing. And I've made edits with NPOV in Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi articles on a neutral tone, without which few would have been listed as a DYK, so your statement that POV on some india related articles is "partially due to your edits" is laughable at best.

Once again, I request you to READ the sources (few are jingo ones) given before trying to accuse others of not providing them, for that is the best way to negate such POV issues. The way it stands now you don't even read them and I have to point them out that they already exist and bring in further resources (which quotes the exact line for your convenience). It would be useless to continue this any further, but as it stands now you don't read the references and expect someone to spoonfeed you the exact lines and words. I can't babysit you any longer if you can't read the sources yourself. Tx Idleguy 03:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)