User talk:Khabboos: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:46, 22 February 2014

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Khabboos! Thank you for your contributions. I am Writers Bond and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Writers Bond (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

You have constantly and purposely violated and attempted to violate Wikipedias neutral point of view and rule on editing on several pages (Talk:Karachi, Talk:Sindhi people, Jayapala, and Hindu Kush). You have already been warned by other editors that this is not allowed. Following your recent edits on the Hindu Kush with your deliberate disruptive editing of a quote in a attempt to push your "agenda" I have personally come to inform you that you are severely risking being banned. AcidSnow (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the user keeps it up just go to admin noticeboard with a history of the issues. They will deal with it there.--Inayity (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khabboos, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Khabboos! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Hindu Kush. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. 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, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the edit I made at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_kush#Origin_of_name? What is wrong with it? The term Hindu Kush comes from the words Hindu and Kush, so we have to either replace Indians with Hindu or put the few words that I added at the end of that particular senence. If one reads the next sentence, it clearly mentions Hindu Kush='Killer of Hindus', so why is what I add unacceptable?—Khabboos (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Khabboos. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by LukeSurl^{t c} 16:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Administrators' noticeboard

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. AcidSnow (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to participate or watch the discussion, you can find it at WP:ANI#User:Khabboos. AcidSnow accidentally started the discussion on the wrong page, so I've moved it. Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your message on the noticeboard. AcidSnow (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please return to the discussion? AcidSnow (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What discussion? You are edit warring with me and have reverted many of my legitimate edits. I am waiting for the mediation committee's decision - they're supposed to take a decision within a week, that is by tomorrow, 9th February, 2014.—Khabboos (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you ignoring the discussion and trying to shift it from you inappropriate behavior to this "dispute" you have created?. Your edits were not "legitimate" and I am not the only one that has said this. They have broken many of Wikipedia's polices and your temple reference; which you asked for mediation for breaks 3 in one: POV, original research, and miss representation of the article. So how are they "legitimate" edits? AcidSnow (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Hinduism in Pakistan. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. 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, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. SMS ^Talk 16:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the article on Hinduism in Pakistan, I wrote that a mob ransacked a temple at Nowshera in 2005, with this as a reference - '"Mob ransacks temple in Nowshera". http://www.dawn.com/news/145745/mob-ransacks-temple-in-nowshera. DAWN MEDIA GROUP. June 30, 2005. Retrieved 31 January 2014.', which said the same thing, but AcidSnow is continuously removing it, so please tell me what to do.—Khabboos (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have told you several times already POV is not allowed here. You also keep under representing the links you have given. "to avenge an alleged desecration of Holy Quran by a man here", this is not a hate crime so please stop adding it you are wasting my time and others. AcidSnow (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need someone to mediate.—Khabboos (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mediate what? I have given you 3 legitimate reasons. Why are you continuing? AcidSnow (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When a content dispute arises you have to stop the edit war and need to take it to the talk page. If after discussion among the two sides at the talk page they are unable to resolve the dispute then there are multiple ways forward (See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution). So if you have tried one way go to the next step of dispute resolution. Also remember even if you think you are right about something or your edit is justifiable in a content dispute, it does not allow you to continue the edit war. And both of you might also like to know that Arbitration Committee has allowed administrators to impose Discretionary Sanctions on editors if they find their actions disruptive in the India-Pakistan topic area. -- SMS ^Talk 17:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, Khabboos has filled an Mediation here. If there's anything you want to say about this then go there. AcidSnow (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Hinduism in Pakistan". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 9 February 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sindhi people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dravidian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Islam, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. "Wikihow" is not an acceptable source. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relax!

Hi Khabboos. It may be useful to read some basic Wiki-policies: WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Also, it may be good to inform you that the western and the Indian understanding of Hinduism may be quite divergent. Many Indian editors have a "traditional" point of view on Hinduism and its history, and may be shocked to find out how western academics "tear apart" their sacdred narrative. While westerners may be shocked by what they perceive as a "closed mindset" and a lack of critical attitude. Wikipedia depends on WP:RS - typically academic sources, which may not intend to hurt religious feelings, but nevertheless approach Hinduism from a scientific point of view, analyzing its history and content, questioning "eternal truths".

These different approaches lead very often to disputes, and may easily escalate. No easy solution here, except for: stay cool, stay friendly, use the talk page, and use WP:RS. and don't be afraid to really research topics, and to read serious literature. But, then, be also prepared to meet points of view which may be discomforting. Good luck, and all the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always relaxed. Thanks.—Khabboos (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Hello, I'm Slazenger. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Hinduism in Pakistan, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 16:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your request at WP:AE

Hello Khabboos. I suggest you withdraw your AE request, since it's not in the required format (see top of that page). Moreover, User:AcidSnow is not in the log as having been notified under WP:ARBIP. This means that action against AcidSnow could not be taken under the discretionary sanctions. I have looked at your arbitration request which is likely to be declined. You are probably better off opening up a WP:Request for comment on the article talk page to settle the content issue. Since RfCs are posted in a central list, this could be a way of bringing in more participants. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taliban and alleged persecution of Hindus in Pakistan

Please could you supply some citations that clearly state a link between the Taliban and persecution of Hindus in Pakistan. If you cannot supply such citations, then I am inclined to remove all mention of the Taliban from the article on Hinduism in Pakistan. It seems to me that finding such citations should be more important to you than word-engineering the paragraph concerning them in that article.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont demand

Could please not demand to get your way as you did here? Its very disrespectful that you would do that after others have already told you that its not allowed. AcidSnow (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration request

The request for arbitration involving you has been declined. The suggestions made by the Committee may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee, Rs chen 7754 04:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions are applied to articles related to Pakistan

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system. Please read Wikipedia's policies about edit warring and dispute resolution for assistance in resolving these kinds of content disputes. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright and quotations

If an article exactly copies a sentence (or part of a sentence) from a source, the copied words have to be put in inverted commas, and have the citation immediately next to it. The copied words are a quotation.

Sometimes it is desirable to have things as quotations. What is being said might be true, or it might be an exaggeration. Putting the information in a quotation means that we are not taking responsibility for it being true, only that those things were what was written. This can be a good technique when dealing with controversial or difficult claims.

If we copy the exact words from sources and do not put them as quotations, this is breach of copyright. We cannot do this.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Hello, I'm Ogress. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Criticism of Islam because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Your comments and changes are partisan; write it neutrally. Ogress _smash! 06:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Amarnath Motumal

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Amarnath Motumal requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. JMHamo (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to start using references to build up the article, and to place citations. Merely writing what you know about the subject without doing research will fail.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

Please don't engage in sockpuppetry as you did with with this IP, 180.215.91.131 on the Persecution of Hindus article. AcidSnow (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be using User talk:180.215.91.131 and User talk:180.215.56.246 for editing. If you continue with this you may get blocked, which I assume you do not want.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 19:28, 22 February 2014 edit Toddy1 (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 47,232 edits →‎Speedy deletion nomination of Amarnath Motumal ← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:46, 22 February 2014 edit undo Toddy1 (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 47,232 edits →‎Sockpuppetry Next edit →
Line 132:		Line 132:

	Please don't engage in [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry\|sockpuppetry]] as you did with with this IP, 180.215.91.131 on the [[Persecution of Hindus]] article. [[User:AcidSnow\|AcidSnow]] ([[User talk:AcidSnow\|talk]]) 18:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)		Please don't engage in [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry\|sockpuppetry]] as you did with with this IP, 180.215.91.131 on the [[Persecution of Hindus]] article. [[User:AcidSnow\|AcidSnow]] ([[User talk:AcidSnow\|talk]]) 18:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
			:You appear to be using [[User talk:180.215.91.131]] and [[User talk:180.215.56.246]] for editing. If you continue with this you may get blocked, which I assume you do not want.--[[User:Toddy1\|Toddy1]] ([[User talk:Toddy1\|talk]]) 19:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)