Hi, I think that you need to re-calculate the statistics entered in the table. I have reverted it for the time being as at first look it seemed to have wrong information. Please feel free to re-insert the table after giving it another look. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I've undone my edits. At first glance, you had changed the link but not the text (which is a copy of the URL), so it looked like you were trying to get users to think that it was a different website than what it actually was. Sorry for the confusion. Matt (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the earlier link had article title "Srinagar", so it was easy for me to search the moved article also i need not change link text. Doorvery far (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same problem i guess please stop using sources which are clearly pov or clearly op-ed i have seen that you have been warned of this before 86.158.179.205 (talk) 09:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wikireader for info, and Escape Orbit for revert. I will keep that in mind, but the ip can demand ref, which i already added. Doorvery far (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kashmir Conflict
Namaskar ! I have reverted your edit on this article removing obama's comments. I had written this section & I feel obama's comments on this conflict are important and need to stay. their is growing interest in the west in general and US in particular about Kashmir conflict and I feel people want and need to know what the position of Barack Obama is on this matter. I also feel we need to collaborate since you have similar interest as mine rather than be reverting each others ontributions. Have a good day --Wikireader41 (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia being encyclopedia should not bias more about current or latest events. So I removed, also US/UK have not taken any step over Kashmir other than some random talk, so I had removed. But the "Recent developments" section needs to be trimmed down. Doorvery far (talk) 07:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Barack Obamas intentions were blocked by a now very powerful Indian American lobby. I think he has got the message now. I will work on the recent developments and try to improve it. I agree that there should be no bias towards more recent events. however I feel the history is relatively well represented in this article.--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Autorickshaw laden with stones meant for distribution was siezed by the police in March 2009.Your link to Tribune India does not state that it was linked to Nawhatta killing..
Separatists and workers of a political party were believed to be behind stone pelting incidents which led to retaliatory fire by the police. The reference provided by you doesn't point out to that anywhere.
I have fixed as you suggested. I had linked to Nawhatta killing because 1 proximity of date, 2 Damage to police vehicle and possibility of lynching. Doorvery far (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have qouted 2 references one frome Tribune that is ok. But The reference to which leads to retaliatory fire by the police. is this [3]which does not contain what u have qouted rather contains a contadictory statement. It says "Oft times, crowds are known to have used violent means like stone-pelting as a preemptive measure to check the security forces from going on a smashing rampage in their localities during protest demonstrations. And it is known to have worked. It bears repeating that the top leadership in the pro-freedom camp, including Mirwaiz Umer Farooq and Syed Ali Shah Geelani, has repeatedly advised and appealed against stone-pelting and other forms of crowd violence."Kashmirspeaks 12:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashmirspeaks (talk • contribs)
There are thousand refs in net for stone pelting problem there. Only "likely to be challenged" sentences to be given inline citations - not every sentence needs a ref in wiki. Hope this clarifies. They advise crowds, but supply stones, you know what politicians actually are. Doorvery far (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider discussing your concerns with the relevant users before pursuing deletion further. If you still think the articles should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may send them to WP:AfD for community discussion. Thank you - SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)
Hi, This is regarding your last revert, I didnt understand your comment "undo, context here is dispute between Pak and India" also can u provide any reference for this Kashmiri Shia support India. They oppose Pak, I am not concerned. But I still appreciate your unbiased edits. Oniongas (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on India. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Abecedare (talk) 06:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion nominations
When you nominate article or files for deletion you should ensure that you inform the originial creator/uploader of the nomination. You can use the code provided in the deletion tag for this purpose. By the way, I am not declining the speedy nominations even though your tags are misplaced, since it would be better if another admin independently told you so. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, I have notified the author. But I find your behavior of reverting[5] without reasoning as unacceptable, seem to hinge to game the system in the edge of policies. If you are unaware, law goes more by spirit, more than by letter. I pity your confidence that another admin will tell me what you think in your mind. Doorvery far (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Doorvery far, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
Priyanathtalk16:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted the file File:Borivali park stone.jpg that you uploaded since it was licensed under a non-commercial use, non-derivative license which is not compatible with wikipedias free licensing requirements and is different from cc-by license, which you had tagged it as. In future, please be sure that you read and follow wikipedia's Image use policies and tag any imagages you upload correctly. Abecedare (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since wikipedia is non-commercial I have uploaded, and I have mentioned about no derivative work. But now i just gone through the wikipedia policy. I could even write fair use rationale, but image is not so much necessary here, so thanks for the delete. Doorvery far (talk) 04:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Mumbai. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs)
Onef9day, don't worry that is clear case of provoking by him, just ignore. I think he calls it personal attack because i called him childish. I told that because he may improve his behavior. Doorvery far (talk) 06:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:India_freedom_bar_chart.jpg&diff=329873099&oldid=329836958){kind=link}
