User talk:Fahadzkhan

Possibly unfree Image:PakistaniPassport.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:PakistaniPassport.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Spartaz 07:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.

WP:NPA

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--Veritas (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay!

- FK

Dogar

You should stop using illegal and unsuported facts for Musharaf lackies. What you are doing is nothing but propaganda. In any case it wont be long before the whole bunch are sent packing

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.72.40 (talk) 03:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its "Unsupported"

- FK

Courtesy

There is no need to use such languange, if you disagree, that is fine, but how do you know anything about conspiracy, unless you were there. The news stories and the facts absolutely dont support any of your writings, especially about releasing of someone, in fact it was Dogar's court that had released the individual you are talking about. If you are interested in conspiracies, than 70% of people of Pakistan believe that Musharraff was involved in the murder of Benazir, but we will wait and see when the UN opens its investigation

trueblood (talk) 04:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry

With at least eight reverts in the past three days, it appears that an edit war is brewing over the Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry article. Rather than continue to revert other editors, please discuss your concerns on the talk page in order to build consensus first. If people keep reverting each other, I may be forced to protect the article. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest locking the article until further notice, because people are coming in and editing nonsense in it such as putting in "legal Chief Justice" and "real CJ" etc., which makes no sense. They are simply emotional edits in my view and I fully support protecting it or even locking it.

- FK