User talk:Kabuli

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Kabuli, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Oore (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Kunan Poshpora incident

Updated DYK query On 20 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kunan Poshpora incident, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir conflict

sorry about removing the paragraph regarding incidents in kashmir conflict page its valid i got confused sorry again Algebraic123 (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Proposed deletion of Chattisinghpora, Pathribal, and Barakpora massacres

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Chattisinghpora, Pathribal, and Barakpora massacres, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

POVfork of Chittisinghpura massacre

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. vi5in[talk] 03:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Chattisinghpora, Pathribal, and Barakpora massacres

I have nominated Chattisinghpora, Pathribal, and Barakpora massacres, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chattisinghpora, Pathribal, and Barakpora massacres. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. vi5in[talk] 21:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait for the results of the AfD before merging. --vi5in[talk] 21:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

See WP:SOAPBOX and WP:COATRACK. I really wouldn't bring up the issue of objectivity. You'll notice that I only put one article up for AfD. The other articles definitely have basis in fact and can be salvaged. But they're not that well-written and are definitely written from a subjective point of view. --vi5in[talk] 21:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I'm sorry about the Gawakadal article. I mixed up the edit between two tabs I had open on my browser. My mistake. I'll go ahead and revert myself. --vi5in[talk] 21:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Took a look at it. Appropriately tagged. I'm not a huge fan of these "massacre" articles. They're just propaganda. --vi5in[talk] 22:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Srinagar

This is in regard to the edit summary you provided for your latest edit to the article List of largest peaceful gatherings in history‎. You talked about a universally approved consensus; but why does the article Muzaffarabad say it is in Pakistan. Articles of ther cities in POK also state that they are in Pakistan. Then, why can't it be said that Srinagar is in India. Rgs Arjuncodename024 18:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kabuli. You have new messages at Arjun024's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Arjuncodename024 07:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV tagging

I don't have an objection to your edits per se as they seem to be well written and sourced. Also, you don't have to convince me that the Indian government is entirely objective and blameless on the Kashmir issue however, I feel that the article I tagged did have a certain POV towards it. I don't however tag every article as having a POV just because the Indian Army or paramilitary forces were accused of partaking in a massacre and am not particularly pleased that you accuse me of this. I would appreciate if you give me the time to review the claims in the article before removing the POV-tag. If you believe that I am intent on covering up India's actions in Kashmir, then you are wrong as I believe this goes against the goals of Wikipedia. I would also like to direct you to this edit I made in case you think I am biased towards a particular side (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Department_of_Police,_Delhi&diff=prev&oldid=361562267). I guess it's fortunate that living in a democracy empowers people with the knowledge that no government is blameless in such incidents. Vedant (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Burning of Lal Chowk

With regards to the article, if someone reads the lede they would be aware of what happened during the incident and who started the fire. I changed the title of the article to something a little more neutral. Regardless, there exists no clear cut WP policy that I'm aware of on the naming of fires/arson attempts.

If you'd like to know what constitutes partisan edits, I suggest you review your contribution log. I haven't challenged your edits because they appear to be well cited although my opinion is that you seem to be intent on creating the notion that the Government of India engages in systematic and organized repression of Muslims and this is the primary reason your account exists. Regardless, I would like to urge you not to presume that I'm oblivious, ignorant or unaware of your POV on the matter. Your edit war with Arjun024 on this article and then your further accusation on his talk page of him acting in a "blatantly partisan" fashion is evidence enough of your opinions on the matter. I don't hate to say it because I really wonder who acts in a partisan manner. Vedant (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to bring to your attention the articles whose titles go by the names Reichstag fire, 2009 Kuwait wedding fire. 1993 Lal Chowk fire is a much better title than the previous one. I am quoting below from the essay Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article_naming
A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.
Arjuncodename024 09:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To quote you, frankly this is getting ridiculous. You want to report on Human Rights Violations in Jammu and Kashmir? That's not a problem and I have no issue with it being reported. As I said, I think the citizen of every democratic country should know what their government is doing. What I take issue with is the fact that you are using that to push a certain point of view. What if I called the 2009 Gaza flotilla raid the 2009 Gaza flotilla massacre? That wouldn't sit well with most people now would it? Regardless, I see you most curiously omit the allegations of torture, rape and denial of Human Rights committed in Azad Kashmir. Here, I've even done some research for you (it's from one of your favourite sources) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
Don't you think it's most unfortunate that we don't even hear of the massacres that go on in Azad Kashmir? It's extremely unfortunate that these people don't have a voice and that because there are so many restrictions on media, we don't even know whats going on there. After all, the only thing these innocents want is to be able to live their own life without the apparatus of the state scrutinizing their every decision. Vedant (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By omit, I am referring to the fact that you refrain from editing said articles not that you leave out facts when you edit them. You take the pains to point out the violations that one side commits (which is fine) but you don't attempt to point out the crimes committed by other parties. It's not a crime nor is it a violation of Wikipedia rules to edit only a certain set of articles. However, there's nothing stopping you from editing articles pertaining to excesses committed by security forces in Azad Kashmir. That said, if you truly are interested in presenting a neutral account of the facts, you might want to consider it. With regards to the edits I make, I don't know if you've noticed or not but if I find particularly "unsavory" details of excesses committed by any side, I always include them. Frankly, I resent your accusations and think you're the one who has a vested interest in pushing a POV.
Coming back to the topic of article renaming, fire exemplifies the fact that a fire was started in the area. In addition, by including the year, it also indicates when the event occurred. Calling it a fire does not negate the fact that it may have been intentionally started and as you say, anyone who reads the lede would be aware of how it started and who started it. Vedant (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 1993 Lal Chowk fire

The article 1993 Lal Chowk fire has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article is a scam with unverified and unsubstantiated source, used as media war against Indian Government.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bill william compton (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PAK

You may also be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Azad Kashmir. Happy editing! Mar4d (talk) 01:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]