User talk:Disinterested

Experiment

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Rama's Arrow 18:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:Iqbal

Hi - I'm sorry but the text you removed was cited from a reliable source. It will have to stay.

You are also advised never to remove text like that, or revert your own talkpage, because it is WP:VANDALISM. Rama's Arrow 18:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about conflicts between Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims. You were placing flat accusations against religious communities. Even with a reference, that does not belong in a biography of Allama Iqbal. Rama's Arrow 19:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You may also be advised to read WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, WP:NPA. Rama's Arrow 19:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, what about the line I added; I think it is not only entirely relevant, but essential. Without it, uninformed readers will get a view that is out of context. Let's discuss this issue on the talk page with civility. --Disinterested 19:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You placed an accusation against Sikhs, Hindus. The article is a biography of Iqbal - while his views, religious and political are up for criticism, the wider conflicts between religious communities has no place there. --Disinterested 19:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Iqbal is neither being maligned nor glorified. Rama's Arrow 19:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I have genuine disagreements with your assessment. These 'critics' say that Iqbal's idea of partition was flawed and point to sporadic violence b/w Muslims as proof. To put that into context, it is ESSENTIAL to compare what would have been the case if Pakistan had not been created. India has more Muslims than Pakistan and is the best comparison in that regard. It is not in anyway biased or irrelevant to point out that this sort of violence is more prevalent in India; hence giving the uninformed reader an ACCURATE view of the argument.--Disinterested 19:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I ask that this conversation be continued on the Iqbal talk page where other members can see it and discuss it.

I'm sorry, but you do not understand WP:NPOV. What would have happened is pure conjecture and not fact, and hardly encyclopedic. Nobody is trying to prove or disprove Iqbal - the article merely speaks of his views, and the criticism of his views. Rama's Arrow 19:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, you're failing to see an obvious point. This is not conjecture in anyway. Let's consider my argument: FACT: India has more Muslims than Pakistan. FACT: sectarian violence between Muslims and Hindus is much worse in India than within Muslims in Pakistan. This is not conjecture in any way, these are facts. I request that you yourself use facts. If you think that my statement is conjecture, then you should remove the critics' statement as well; who is to say that violence is because of religious differences and not because of evil, corrupt people? I believe that there are two options here: remove both statements or keep both. --Disinterested 19:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if I accept your groundless and biased view of violence in India, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH IQBAL? Rama's Arrow 19:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

First, my claims are not groundless, please read the news and it will become obvious. It is certainly not biased, since I myself said that violence of a similar pattern exists in Pakistan albeit very less than in India. Second, it is entirely relevant to Iqbal's article only because of the critics' assertions that his ideas were 'flawed.' If you want to keep that criticism, you should also be prepared to add a response that merely puts that criticism into current context.

Iqbal

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. deeptrivia (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, Disinterested. You are free to have a discussion. You are encouraged to use the talk page for it, and all constructive comments/suggestions are highly appreciated. Rama's Arrow had already realised that he had reverted the article many times, and I thought it would be helpful to remind you about the 3RR rule before you cross the threshold number of reverts, which could have been problematic for you. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but...

I'm sorry if I was rude to you, but the fact is that your impression about violence in India is WP:POV. It is not a fact. And it is not relevant to Iqbal's contention about Muslim political future. Rama's Arrow 19:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for assistance from Alabamaboy

Thanks for asking me to mediate with regards to the Muhammad Iqbal article but I'm on vacation right now and have only limited internet access. As such, I must politely decline. However, if there are any issues I can help with in the future please do contact me. Best, --Alabamaboy 19:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant intrusions by other users

The statement is not POV, because it is a critical analysis of Iqbal's views. Its not a commentary on the religious situation in Pakistan or India, and Iqbal's biography is not a place for discussing religious issues in Pakistan or India. Wikipedia is not responsible for protecting people's feelings, and its important to make the criticism as lucid as praise, or else it is not NPOV.

Gandhi's biography includes criticism about his comments on Jews and Kaffirs. Jinnah's bio talks about the suggestion that Jinnah maybe did not really want partition. So why should we remove a critical analysis of Iqbal's views? This Fire Burns Always 02:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

'The fire always Burns', this message was not intended for you and I seriously do not want to start another competition. I think we can wait until the other person has more time.--Disinterested 06:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid this message does concern me - nothing is exclusive or private on WP - becoz it is about an article I wrote and raised to FA status. This issue is not anything new, and I'm simply helping you realize that it is a cited and referenced critical analysis of Iqbal's views. I don't have any anti-Pakistan bias or any agenda to malign Iqbal or Jinnah. This Fire Burns Always 21:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It should only concern you when I actually make a change on the page. For now, leave me alone!!!!--Disinterested 01:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars. This Fire Burns Always 06:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

How ironic that you should say that! I'm not participating in ANY edit wars and hence you should mind your own business. Since there is NO topic that is currently in discussion between us, you have NO right to trash my talk page. Your constant unwarranted attacks will not be tolerated.--Disinterested 06:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

{{civil3}}

What are you so paranoid about? You don't seem to understand that I'm not "trashing" your page, nor is there any exclusivity or privacy on WP. And don't insult my intelligence by suggesting that the above-raised issue has nothing to do with me. Once again, remain civil and keep a cool head. This Fire Burns Always 06:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not paranoid and I'm not trying to be private. If you have a valid point to make about an ARTICLE that is currently "LIVE" and you are concerned about the content I added, then make it here and refrain from making irelevant attacks. Otherwise, move on!--Disinterested 06:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I've never heard of "dead" articles, neither have I attacked you or raised irrelevant issues. And the problem is, you're refusing to deal with this in a civil manner - exactly why we have this situation here. Oh, and don't refactor your talkpage in a manner that insults "other users." This Fire Burns Always 06:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Please learn some manners and end this right here. I don't have the time to go back and forth on your totally ridiculous conversation. --Disinterested 06:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You're the fella who is doing the yellin' ma friend... Do acquaint yourself with WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:POINT and realize that I'm not your enemy. This Fire Burns Always 06:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record

I am not an admin. I've seen some weird stuff done by Madman0014, and would gladly second any complaints you file over his behavior (see [[Islam_in_China}] for another example of the problems he's caused). Of course, it would be preferable if someone could get him to respond to comments or defend his edits. He has made some valid contributions to the WP. MrZaius^talk 16:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of Bajang Dal

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.

First of all, remember to obey rules and sign your name when you make comments on my talk page. Secondly, if you're posting allegations of hateful statements by the Pope, Pat Robertson, or whoever, you had BETTER cite them. Otherwise, you're lowering the standard of this website from an encyclopedia to a website that's involved in smear campaigns against popular people.

Also, just because you cannot come up with concrete arguments based on tangible facts does not give you the authority to simply use the garbage-can term of 'vandalism'; if it's unclear, Wikipedia actually categorizes people who post non-cited propaganda as vandalism; not people who try to stick to the facts. --Disinterested 17:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.

This will be your final warning. Do not cite POV editorial websites that have no journalistic credibility. I know the countercurrents link well. They have anti-semitic and anti-Hindu content. If I report you for posting anti-semitic content you will be banned. Wikipedia admins take a very dim view of such things. Also, make personal attacks again and I'll report you. Violate 3RR and I'll report you.Netaji 09:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Countercurrents denounces BBC as 'Zionist Propaganda'[1] and engages in polemical attacks on Israel [2][3]. Several of these articles satisfy the criteria for anti-semitism as defined by the B'Naii B'Rith organization. Websites that quote antisemitic content cannot be regarded as reliable journalistic references since they have an ethnic bias.Netaji 10:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The B'Naii B'Rith / the BBC have not called Countercurrents anti semetic. The western media and the USA have been called a Jewish Lobby by [4]. Even they have not been labelled anti semetic. Being critical of Israel's policies towards Palestinians is not anti semitism. Hating Jews because of their religion is anti semetism. You are acting as a policeman, warning people, I would request you to desist and calm down and not act like an admin, even admins do not use such tones. You have shown a huge bias towards Israel as is evident by your User page, by the your own logic you should not comment on such articles due to an ethnic bias. You have also called Islam names on my talk page, so your anti islamic bias is also evident.

Haphar 15:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The B'Naii B'Rith has defined accusations of 'Jewish Loby' and other secret conspiracy theories of Jews as anti-semitism. Look up ADL website. YOUR anti-semitic bias is evident in your consistent accusations of Jewish manipulation and claims of America's 'blank checks' to Israel, all of which are classified by both ADL and AJC as anti-semitic canards. Since articles on countercurrents make such claims, it is an anti-semitic website. Too bad you people have to resort to attacking Jews to drag on an argument.Netaji 19:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

And the B'Naii B'rith is made up of neutral panelists not belonging to Jews, or Isreal ? Ha Ha with caps lock and sound effects. ADC and AJC are not neutral parties ( repeat sfx). And too bad you have to attack individuals when your logic runs out. Also I repeat myself here. I have talked of a Jewsish Lobby, and I have said Isreal is wrong in Palestine. I am not attacking Jews in saying this but you persist in name calling. I am not saying " Islam is full of rapists" as you are, neither am i saying " Islam makes bombs" as you did. So your talk about Islam becomes in your eyes "plain talk" and my disagreement anti semtism. Even Jews would disown supporters like you. But then again I am using logic with someone who has time and again resorted to name calling. From no Jewish loby to weak jewish lobby, make up your mind sir and then comeback. Haphar 20:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Too bad. It's still anti-semitism.Netaji 19:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

In your dreams and coming from one who calls his own country a stink hole! ( And his state as full of beggars). Haphar 18:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Subhash, since this does not have anything to do with me specifically, why don't you continue your accusatory rant on the discussion page? --Disinterested 20:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Incivility

Do not continue to be uncivil in the Hindu Unity article. I have stopped. If you do not as well you will be reported.Netaji 22:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should change your behavior by being more prudent and intelligent. You're the one who's being repeatedly accused of sock-puppetry.--Disinterested 05:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Did I refer to you personally in the talk page? What's the matter, guilty conscience?

Anywho, needling aside. If you were honest about your position, then good. I'm glad you have a modicum of reasonable thought. Bear in mind that you can't make accusations of terrorism against any organization on wikipedia. That's called unsupported POV. Even Hezbollah isn't explicitly called 'terrorists' in the wikipedia article, just that the US and some other countries regard them as terrorists, and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has denied that claim (as have their supporters). Since no government or anti-terrorism unit in the world claims that Bajrang Dal is terrorist, you can't base a claim on any accredited references. The only neutral statement is 'controvertial', so that's what goes there. I will gather all the aggressive acts of BD that I can find and put them there. Personally, I don't like them that much myself.Too literalist.Netaji 10:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This is coming from someone who calls Islam names- and then accuses of a POV ? Haphar 18:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I am being very civil with you. Do not engage in petty vandalism in my talk page.Netaji 23:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong language

Attacking Islam is not racist because there is no such thing as a muslim race. I belive you people call it "Islamophobic". CharmingNetaji 23:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Do not make childish threats

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars.

here

Hindu Unity

I am not familiar with this organisation or website, do give all the links (bbc included)on the discussion page so that people can come to theri own conclusion. Haphar 18:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Bajrang Dal

No it doesn't. I just read the bbc reference and the word terrorist is not mentioned anywhere. Try this sort of crazy jingiost propaganda into the article and it will be reported.Netaji 07:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and, as I had resoned earlier. If these people are "terrorist animals" then Hezbollah are also "terrorist animals". However, Hezbollah isn't listed as either terrorist or animal, so that listing a non-recognized org as terrorist is wrong! Get an accredited government to recognize them as terrorists, then talk.Netaji 07:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Disinterested

Please visit [5] page and add your personal email (if you don't mind) at the bottom for better collaboration, networking and comunication. Thanks :) Omerlives

Urdu Wikipedia

Dear friend,

You seem to be an active Wikipedian from Pakistan. We have an Urdu Wikipedia that needs all the help that it can get. Currently, we do not have many active users and we will really appreciate if you would consider becoming an active contributor. As you are already familiar with Wikipedia's style and rules, your presence would also help elevate the overall content quality.

Hope to see you soon at Urdu Wikipedia

Regards,
Kashif Aqeel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.190.189 (talk) 04:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Disinterested! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 943 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Ghazi Salahuddin - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Join us at FB

Hello Pakistanis Wikipedians! Assalam-o-Alaikum, I hope you are enjoying editing Wikipedia and helping around. I want to join every Pakistani Wikipedian on facebook so I hope you would like to join us in our community. We would/could help each other and make Pakistani articles more better.

Join us:

• Group: Pakistani Wikipedians
• Page: Pakistani Wikipedians

And then sign my guestbook for memories.

Regards: -- Captain Wikipedia! ^{( T - C - G )} 12:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments - Pakistan

Hi Disinterested!

Wiki Loves Monuments, the world's largest photography competition, will be taking place in Pakistan this September. The competition is all about capturing the cultural monuments and heritage sites of Pakistan and uploading these images on Commons to create an online repository which will be freely available to all.

Start taking photos of the sites enlisted here and upload them in September to be eligible for national and international prizes.

Email: [email protected]
Official website: wikilovesmonuments.pk
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WikiLovesMonumentsPK

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Pakistan

Pakistani Cultural Heritage - Edit Drive

Hi Disinterested!

Wikimedia Community User Group Pakistan is organizing an edit drive for Pakistani Wikipedians on Pakistani Cultural Heritage throughout the month of July.
Top three contributors will be given a gift pack containing Wikipedia merchandise.

You can read the event details here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
You are receiving this message as a member of WikiProject Pakistan