User talk: Kashmiri

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User:Kashmiri)
Jump to: navigation, search
Committed identity: 93e503f09fd69f42d86838f9f8ba05e2af45efbdf563c26448bd87e7979cb42b983bdb36e4121469aca4cfb936318ee9c7745a40aefb1d81504f74edc16f11fe is a SHA-512 commitment to this user's real-life identity.

Map: Durrani Empire[edit]

The map of the empire in the peak time exactly the same as the current international border which is not correct. Also, according to some references, Mashhad was under control of Shahrukh Afshar until the conquer by Qajar Dynasty. [1] [2] [3] [4]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Kashmiri. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ncell.svg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Ncell.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

reliable sources for Support vote[edit]

Are you a real and impartial honest editor ? Defiantly yes therefore I Could know which "reliable sources" tell you that Saraiki is a Language ? If you have any paste them here . I will provide you two times more sources that it is a dialect of Lahnda (Western Punjabi). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Please take the discussion to Talk:Saraiki language, that's the correct place. — kashmiri TALK 15:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
People now have started abusing Uanfala. Could you please save your ass in between by changing your Vote ? I f you have reliable sources then tell me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I have already stated my opinion and I don't intend to engage in any discussions with you on this page. Please mind your language. — kashmiri TALK 16:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbrn (talkcontribs) 17:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced content[edit]

The next time I find you leaving or creating unsourced content in WP, I will take you to ANI.

Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


I appreciate the thanks for my comment at ANI, but you've been around even longer than I have (all accounts considered) and you should know as well as I do that it is everyone's responsibility to engage in discussion, regardless of who made the initial edit or revert, or who failed to do so when they "ought to".

You would be well advised to note that the effectiveness of a report is often equal to the attempts of the reporter to engage in resolution, and the long standing reluctance of the reported to take it seriously. I have often started the discussion when I am the reverter, the reverted, or even a third party, because that is how you build an encyclopedia. TimothyJosephWood 02:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I would also note that editing in between other's comments is confusing an generally frowned upon. I would suggest fixing yourself in that area and making a succinct reply instead. TimothyJosephWood 03:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for editing in between other's comments. Someone using bullet points all over made responding not very legible. Will refrain from it next time.
As to collaborative editing, it always takes two to a tango. After my attempts to engage with Jytdog went nowhere [1] [2] [3] and he went on reverting my contributions and calling them "garbage", I had no more patience to be treated this way. ANI is precisely to sort out such behavioural problems, isn't it.
Your comments about collaborative editing were helpful. Your attempts to criticise my past edits were not needed. rRegards, — kashmiri TALK 02:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of native language at Srinagar airport article[edit]

Hello, I had deleted the Urdu translation of Srinagar International Airport per WP:INDICSCRIPT. True, this policy does not explicitly mention infoboxes, but I would say the lead and the infobox serve very similar functions. If there is consensus to omit the native language from the lead, I feel it is inappropriate to simply add it to the infobox. This defeats the purpose of the consensus – to avoid conflicts over which languages to add. Please consider. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 02:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sunnya343: I believe the discussion and consensus were only about the lead section. The "native name" field in the infobox, on the other hand, was intended precisely for native names and I saw it is being used for this purpose in a number of languages and scripts. It is the first time I saw an editor quoting INDISCRIPT to remove script from an infobox. I am not really sure whether you are correct but I am not willing to go to war over it either. Feel free to revert me if you feel strongly about it - otherwise, an RfC might be an option. Regards, — kashmiri TALK 02:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I know what you mean; I have never done that before, but upon reading through the RfC, I feel it is appropriate. To me, adding languages to the infobox sets us up for the conflicts that led to the WP:INDICSCRIPT discussion. Also, it should be noted that the "native name" field in the infobox predates WP:INDICSCRIPT. I first made this edit at Kempegowda International Airport and noticed that two other editors agreed with me. If you don't mind, I would like to revert your edit, but please tell me if you have further concerns. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 03:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Sure, go ahead. Even though I understood from RfC that the case of geographic names is a borderline one and there seemed to be a consensus that GEO places can have local name. But I am not strongly for or against. — kashmiri TALK 12:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Virgin Active.svg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Virgin Active.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


Based on your following me to Meridians, your editing there, and your posting at ANI subsequent to what happened at the Meridians article, it appears that you have some bone to pick with me. So how do we lay this to rest? Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I very much appreciate your words. I read your on your page that you started a biotec, my full respect. Personally I am linked with research in neurology (and research funding). I suggest we try to be WP:CIVIL, don't call each other's GF edits "garbage", and should our views differ on a given topic, we don't revert each other but try to come up with consensus text on Talk. I also won't follow you. How does it sound? — kashmiri TALK 21:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
that sounds good thanks. As for me, I would appreciate it if you would make sure that what you add is reliably sourced per MEDRS or RS as is relevant. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Sure. Let's just keep in mind that MEDRS are also required in alternative medicine, and this usually means authoritative SECONDARY sources. — kashmiri TALK 21:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, good let's talk about that. Have you edited much on alt med/pseudoscience topics in WP? (real question, i just want to see where you are coming from) Jytdog (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog: Well, we can talk but WP:MEDRS requires that it also applies to alternative medicine. I indeed did edit a few pseudoscience articles - I recall an article on Burzynski, I think I tried to bring focus to clinical evidence (or rather its lack), back from the focus on publicity, legal cases and overall Burzynski-bashing that some editors seemed to prefer. Had fought hard against stem cell hype. Had a clash with some conspiracy theorists elsewhere. I did a couple of mysticism-related articles (yoga, etc.) but avoided health-related parts (precisely due to lack of MEDRS). See, I edit on a range of topics, anything from neurology to lingustics to armed conflicts to ethnology to religious movements (and my favourite sport: sockpuppet-hunting), so don't remember most of what I edit.
I think I am pretty hard on pseudo-science. However, as to alternative systems of medicine, I prefer being cautious before branding them as "superstition". We see a lot of overlapping between what is considered mainstream and non-mainstream at any given moment, with various procedures and therapies being constantly inluded or excluded from the academic medicine (whose exact boundaries are also not easy to define). To give an example, I remember when in the 1970s, herbal therapies were publicly called a susperstition; even though I am now dealing with academic studies of curcuminoids as a SMN2 splicing modifier to possibly treat SMA. Or, ostheopathy was once considered alternative medicine but some (some!) of its methods are being more and more accepted by the mainstream. At the same time, as you perfectly know, various procedures and therapeutic methods are being removed from the mainstream as they are being found not based on evidence but on incorrect concepts ("beliefs" as you'd perhaps say).
The subject is lenghty, not sure I am able to engage at this time - we are having three clinical trials just opened and I need to devote time to enrollment and their quality, so I might not be able to respond promptly. But thanks for your extended hand, I reciprocate. Regards, — kashmiri TALK 18:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
BTW, I would appreciate if you trust my edits on SMA and related neuromuscular disorders. I do not always have time to link to quality published sources (which would not be a leaflet), but the information I add is never promotional and is usually 100% correct. I always mark unsourced info with {{cn}} anyway, which is more than most editors do. Regards, — kashmiri TALK 16:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Well I really hope your understanding in the altmed space has progressed beyond what was in evidence in the Burzynski Clinic article in contributions like this. At the time editors were also complaining about your "fisking" of other editors' comments not being helpful, but you're still doing that. Alexbrn (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@Alexbrn: Yes, I should have perhaps led the discussion in a different manner then, but I stand by my comments that Burzynski's compounds have no proven efficacy (per source - but not "proven inefficacy" as some editors wanted; simply, lack of controlled trial data did not allow drawing any meaningful conclusion). While my personal opinion of Burzynski's business is the exact opposite of high esteem, I'd rather stick with how his treatments are described by academic sources and not tabloids, and am against trying to add every single negative mention found about Burzynski to the article. In my understanding, Wikipedia should present facts in a neutral, objective, cold way instead of fiercely proselytising for or against anything/anyone. But that's my take on it, everyone is entitled to his/her own. — kashmiri TALK 19:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
nope, nobody gets a pass on basic content policies. Content has to be cited; if you are in a hurry please just note things on the Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Update (and Thanks)[edit]

I hope the new year has been treating you well so far. Thanks for your patience regarding your Elsevier access request. I just wanted to stop by and let you know that we haven't forgotten about your request, and we are currently in the process of reviewing the status of your Elsevier account. Feel free to reach out to me on my talk page regarding any questions, comments, or concerns you may have on this matter. --JustBerry (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

  1. ^ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. ^ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.