User talk:Rfcom

The information you are adding to the Kashmir article is biased and POV. Please do not continue to make such edits because they will be reverted and also cause an edit war. Thanks.

Look the above user is right, your editing is very PoV. Please stop making these edits. You aren't adding any info that isn't already there. thank you. --Madhev0 19:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am Indian but even I know this is not an Indian encyclopedia. U need to accept this. What is wrong with your editing is that you are adding a large paragraph on a hijacking and other incedents into an article which is about a region of the world. It is like adding a large part about the assam violence into the India article. Very little in that page should have to do with what happened to India or what seperetists or terrorists have done or are accused of doing or the kargil battles. And to call Pervez Musharraf by "military ruler" instead of his accurate title as head of state is very biased. It is like replacing president with war crimes criminal on the George bush page. So please stop editing like this. It isn't about what your opinion is on this matter. It is against wikipedia policy to edit like this. If you continue to do what you are doing, you will be blocked from editing. --Madhev0 20:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In wikipedia we go by wikipedia policy on No personal attacks, which is another policy you have to read. Also you should probably listen to my warning that you will be blocked instead of calling it a threat, but it is your choice.

"You seem to be a bit confused on the concept of POV" No I am not confused on the concept of POV, but you are. You don't understand that adding a large amount of biased stuff about separatist involvements in specific incedents is not important to an article about a region of the world. Thank you but I will think twice before I trust someone who has only spent a day of editing in wikipedia to tell me what POV is.

"Military ruler is in fact the npov manner of referring to a dictator" No it isn't. If you are going to mention a head of state, you mention what seat they hold. It says "President General Pervez Musharraf" already making it clear on both political and military position. Replacing that with "military ruler Pervez Musharraf" is unnecessary and illogical.--Madhev0 22:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]