User talk:Soman

see: User talk:Soman/archive1, User talk:Soman/archive2, User talk:Soman/archive3, User talk:Soman/archive4

Thanks and sorry

Soman, Thanks for the help and sorry for the misunderstanding. Will post a public apology to you also in the discussion page. On.Elpeleg (talk) 11:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for creating articles about Nepal. Are you from Nepal? 202.70.64.57 (talk) 09:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is wrong with you?

the title of the "Iraqi-Israeli relations" article is RELATIONS! they have had relations even though they are bad! they may not trade with each other, but is Iraq trading with Saudi Arabia?? yet you dont have a problem with that article?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unclefester89 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please use arguments to counter wp:undue and wp:point violations

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia.

Your test moveon the page Azad Kashmir / Pakistan occupied Kashmir has been reverted. Please take a look at the welcome page or introduction to editing to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.Cityvalyu (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your page move edit appears to be unconstructive and you have not used to used the talk page to counter the arguments.Further the edits that you reverted were well explained in the talk page unlike your edits. Hence, it appears to be an edit war with no logical backing to counter the issues discussed at the talk page. If you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative point by point rebuttal to counter the arguments on talk page and then please state the reasons for reverting to a "per se controversial" title (Azad Kashmir) that violates wp:undue and wp:point.Cityvalyu (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.Cityvalyu (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Thank you.Cityvalyu (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain in which article i have violated 3RR. --Soman (talk) 11:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:NPsouthafrica.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:NPsouthafrica.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Left (Germany)

Dear Soman,

before deleting text from the article The Left (Germany) use the discussion board, please. All statements are supported by objective sources or sources of the party itself. After we discussed it we come up with a common understanding and edit the article. Please stop to be aggressive and calm down and discuss. Thank you.

Reachtests (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir related edits

Hi Soman, I sincerely apologize if I have hurt your sentiments during the course of really heated arguments on topics related to Kashmir. Shovon (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reword

u wrote " India claims both AJK & FANA as 'PoK'"..you may have erred..first, pok is a term which came to exist from 1947..the article on northern areas and ak say that pakistan coined these terms and carved these entities out of pok (or whatever you wish to call that entity) AFTER 1970....SO, INDIA DOES NOT CLAIM ANYTHING HERE..constant name from 1947 till now-pok!! INSTEAD PAKISTAN CLAIMS THESE TWO TERMS (USED EXCLUSIVELY ONLY WITHIN PAKISTAN) AND THESE BIASED POST 1970 TERMS LACK MEANING TOO (AZADI=INDEPENDENCE)to erase pok memory and imply northern areas of pok was not under kashmir conflict(implying merger with pak state)..only fools will believe that and support its unilateral decision to betray the kashmiri cause by ceding kashmir territory to china.... SO wE HAVE TO WEED OUT PAK. PROPAGANDA AND USE OBJECTIVE TERMS UNDERSTOOD BY ALL!! i suggest a rewording "pak. claims pok is made up of two areas ajk and na after 1970.."..that should sound neutral and without any confabulation!!!Kashmircloud (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC) POK will onlt be used if IOK is used side by side kapish 86.151.123.126 (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]