Hello, Kushsinghmd, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name 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 someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Abductive (reasoning)08:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome!
Hello, Kushsinghmd, 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!
May 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Research fellow, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This is particularly important when adding or changing any facts or figures and helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Venustas 12 (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'response'
I always wondered why some people considered their information more reliable than others when they are not providing any solid reference ?!
anyways it was solved
though it was already solved by merging which is OK, but I don't understand why my edit was considered vandalism, but when people do the same to my article wasn't considered so !!
Hello. When leaving a comment on a talk page or project page, please sign your edit by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your text. This will automatically add your username and a time stamp. Please note, that this is however only meant for talk pages, not for edits on articles. Regards, De728631 (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Collaborating at Wikipedia
Dear Kushsinghmd,
I have noticed you are new to Wikipedia. To make to best of our time here, at this collaborative project I had a look again at this page. Please, have a look too at this page. I also noticed that since you started to contribute to the article research fellow, there have been some small improvements to the introduction; however these improvements came at some considerable price and effort through an extensive revert conflict. In order to avid this in the future, we should remind ourselves to engage in a constructive interaction without creating biases.
I hope you will continue to make meaningful contribution to this project and like to personally welcome you here.
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are deliberately conflating two different issues?
"MOS states to use abbreviation on first occurence. "OR" in language doesnt necessirly mean more prominent than other. Even if more prominent, how does that hurt ?!"
What are you talking about?
Have you not noticed there are two differnt debates going on?
The one about the use of aberrations; the other about the order how to list the two examples?
Making null edits with inflamatory edit summaries like this [1] is not going to help the situation. Please refrain from doing that. Pedro : Chat 14:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just forgot to add the reason first time when I undid the vanadalizing edits.
I appreciate the previous edit summary was blank. What I'm saying is that calling edits vandalism when they are not vandalism by WP standards is only likely to inflame a tense situation rather than achieving a compromise state between editors for the good of the article. Pedro : Chat 15:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think he is the one who started reverting all my edits and labelling most of them vanadalism, and I haven't seen any notice given to him that he should not do so !!! second, yes he is vandalizing , cause he is intentionally compromising the integrity of the article by all his recent edits. Again Thanks for your effective intervention and thanks for following the article. Kushsinghmd (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Thanks, hope you tried to be honest this time in reporting incident, not as usual, like when you said I am vandalaizing the article when in fact you are just covering your unethical acts.. Kushsinghmd (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. This not harrasing language cause you really did so, otherwise please answer why did you change positions when you failed to respond to my objections ?!!
2. I consider this tone harrasing to me, STOP IT NOW!
Stop using capital letters. Capitalising sentences or phrases is considered a form of shouting, which most people take as rude behaviour. Mootros (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yea right !!! see who is talk ?! dont you feel emabarrassed when you are showing you clear double standard? talking about rudenes, and you are not saying please stop, but rather ordering me to stop ?!!! NO COMMENT ... perceieve it the way you like, that's your problem Kushsinghmd (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who are other users who have been approving your changes at RF
RHaworth .. integrated my first edits intot the article
De728631
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Vandalism Revision
Thank you for reverting vandalism here, but an all caps edit summary isn't necessary. Next time, please just type in regular text (no caps) what you are doing on that edit and then click save. It keeps us all from being yelled at. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mootros
Mootros is willing to disengage and find a corner of Wikipedia and be there, not interacting with you. You need to do the same. Disengage, move on, get a cup of tea and take a WP:WIKIBREAK. Nothing is worth getting this worked up over, so just break away and find an article to work on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Admin:
Since I am new to WP community, so I am not sure what you exactly mean. I havent been chasing Mootros or anything, but he rather did. He tried to ask about my location, several times reported me falsely. For every single change I make he was after me, reporting vandalism when it was not. In fact that's not bad in itself, but I believe that would help keep the integrity of WP. However when the rational behind this is soo irrational, and yet over a week now we are not taking any step forward, then there is a problem. I believe now is a good time to get this done. Not through users, but admins have a role to play in such situation, to investigate the presented materials from both side as neutral party, and any discussion should go through them. In Fact, we started improving when Regentstalks started to intervene, yet he didnt complete what he started for few hours, and said he will be off for a while !!!. All what I asked opposing party for is to back up their claims, yet they provided all sort of false claims, and when I pin point such ambigous deeds, they call it Harrasment !!! what is that ?!! I seriously would like intervention, and thorough investigation of this material, and such false claims. And If I am faulty or guilty, please tell me, however if the other party was faulty, then it is time to take some action since I am really starting to lose my patience. Finally, I have to thank you for your interventions, i really appreciate when I see admins giving us sometime to help us. Thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I am reluctant to post this as Mootros has agreed to disengage, if you want intervention, the best way is go through mutually agreeable terms on WP:MEDCAB. MEDCAB is Mediation and isn't a battleground as so many pages have turned out to be so far. It is where you talk out your problems and then move on for good. It is non-binding and voluntary, but it does work. It is the next best step to blocks for all, which is quickly coming if this behavior from both of you doesn't stop. First though, before running off to MedCab, I want you to take a week and see how things go. Mootros has agreed to disengage. Don't talk to him, don't message him, don't bother him, and he will be expected to do the same to you. We will be watching. If after a week, if he as contacted you or engaged you, take it to MedCab. But take the week first. It could come out that nothing happens and everything is great. I would also recommend staying away from Talk:Research fellow and finding another article to work on. It seems you have given far too much time to that page and its sister page Research fellow. Find a new article to work on, at present, there are 3,307,033 articles on English Wikipedia (the site you are on). You will find one you will like and can work on peacefully. Don't limit yourself to just one or two pages. Got for the gusto. Join a WikiProject where you can work on a whole slew of articles. But battling to the bitter end on one or two pages isn't what this site is about.
Dear Admin, I am Ok to take 1 week from RF and even from WP, but I am not sure how is this gonna help solving the dispute ?! Matter of fact I belive that we don't need a break as much as we need an admin / moderator to regulate and intervene when appropriate. But the way I am seeing this, to be honest, specially after what happened since last report, that not much actions will be taken. I havent seen comments except a short one from one admin on Mootros report, and none on my comment on that report!!. So far I am not optimistic, that things will change just by doing nothing, I beleive we have to work to see results. So us ( Mootros and I) taking a break, does that mean that admins will be working on the RF thing, or they will also take a break too?! I think I have already put in suffiecnt work and enough time, that this job should be completed. Yes there is many WP pages, but the experience I already had, will make me wait till I see what will happen.
FYI I am not going to contact Mootros. If you noticed, I never started contacting him on his page until he approached me first. And even on the discusson page I didnt know him till i find him labelling my edits as vandalism!!! So this shows that I already not that kind of person in approachin someone.
Just want to make a point clear, I am not an admin. I am just an editor who is taking the lead on this discussion, which any editor can do. There are plenty of editors who step in the place of admins when no admins are available. We are normally more easy to get along with as we don't block people (and can't) and people are happy with that.
Regardless of my lack of adminship, I am glad that you are not going to contact him and he isn't going to contact you. This makes my day. I am glad you will also be taking the week. I recommend checking out the [random article feature to find something neat to work on. If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me or message here as I have it on my watchlist. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kushsinghmd, the consensus is, MD is inappropriate in the lead. Please do not take that as an insult to you or MDs! The different types of research fellows can get explained in the rest of the article, it is not worth wasting your time on the argument. Good wishes, MiRroar (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have reverted your edits to this article for a number of reasons, but most especially because the overall tone and POV of the content was simply not appropriate for the article. Much of the material that you are interested in including is already represented in Criticism of Muhammad which is really the proper place for it. Thanks for your contributions to the project though; I wish you the best! Doc Tropics23:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for visiting my profile. I would urge you not to do delete, but rather to improve. That's not my POV, that's critics' POV, and it is worth mentioned in the article, thank you Kushsinghmd (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand both the POV and the criticism, and it has its place. However, that place is more properly in the article dedicated to criticism, rather than the very first sentence of this article. If you review Criticism of Muhammad and Criticism of Islam you will find that both polygamy and Muhammad's "personal life" are already covered, and some of your text and references would fit better there. Thanks for your consideration on this topic, Doc Tropics23:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Also, I'm going to copy/paste these last 2 comments back to your page to keep things all in one place. I'll watch here for further comments.[reply]
The article Criticism of Muhammad is too generalized. However, the new criticism section is specific to the marriages of Muhammad, which is directly relevant to the wives of Muhammad. As in many articles on Wikipedia, there is sometimes a bit of overlap, which is acceptable, I don't think I need to give examples on this. Kushsinghmd (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not repeatedly reinsert material that has been removed by several different editors now without first engaging in discussion on the talk page. Much of that material was not directly relevant, poorly written, and relied too heavily on interpretations of primary sources, which is not allowed. Please use to talk page to work with other editors to determine how the material might be better presented.--Cúchullaint/c12:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Muhammad's wives. 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. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Cúchullaint/c12:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's not how it works. If you want the material included, it is on you to defend it on the article's talk page. You have consistently failed to do that despite repeated requests. If you revert even one more time, you will be blocked from editing.--Cúchullaint/c12:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - I am a productive, long-time editor and I made every effort to engage you in a friendly collegial manner. Referring to my good-faith edits as "vandalism" is grossly offensive and insulting, not to mention completely false. On a closely related topic, you have blatantly violated the WP:3RR
policy and I have requested that your account be temporarily blocked from editing. I urge you to review our policies and reflect on how a "collaborative" project requires editors to work together. Doc Tropics14:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, I do respect the fact you area long time editor, but reverting my edits while the discussion is still ongoing is unacceptable behavior, if not insulting. I expected that you would respect the ongoing discussion and actively share more in it. Please share in the discussion opened on the talk page, I am very willing to discuss all the new edits one at a time for better focus. I put the first one for discussion, please comment if you have any concern. Thank you again Kushsinghmd (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I reverted edits that are disruptive. User tend to delete sourced materials, while discussion is still open. User refrained from sharing the discussion on Talk page and opted to delete without discussion, so I reverted their edits as they tend to be disruptive
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
24 hours is a very short block. Please read WP:BRD which explains exactly where you went wrong. You boldly made your changes, you were reverted, but then you failed to engage in productivediscussion. Instead, you repeatedly reverted when the consensus of every participating editor was against you. It's critically important that you learn to work with others on this project; please use the 24 hours to consider this. Doc Tropics14:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that you went after other articles I edited, and deliberately vanadalized the integrity of them not respecting any sources or discussion, like the forced conversion. Also I havent seen you commenting or replying to the talk page of Muhammad's wives, you just prefered to delete, if this is not vandlaism, then what do you call what you are doing ?????Kushsinghmd (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Thanks admin for reviewing the request. You asked me to address my behavior, well I think that my behavior abides well with WP rules. I was working on several articles. I improved them, added sourced materials, removed irrevlant information. Other editors worked on this material, like yesterday, an editor corrected a a word in a quotation from food to prayer, and stuff like that. However few editors reverted the whole things that I wrote, deleting sourced materials, for different reasons. I disccussed with them my points with on our personal talk pages, or the talk pages of the articles unders dispute, unfortunately they weren't willing to discuss, if you reviewed the discussion, you wll find that none was willing to discuss or more appropriately to continue discussion, or even working on improving the article, they just wanted to delete the new material, providing different false claims which I replied to, and they didn't object further, however they prefered to take the action of deletion and reverting, and accordingly, I reverted their edits, cause it is clear disruption. If they are not willing to discuss, then they should not delete!. So they continued reverting, and I continued reverting their edits as a clear vandalism. However one proceeded and filed a 3RR, to bloack, me, and him doing so, he and other editors took advantage and went over other articles I have been working on, and reverted my edits, deleting according to their POV! Please let me know of any further question or comments, and i HOPE THAT YOU REALLY CONSIDER THE ISSUE ASAP. THANK YOU Kushsinghmd (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Content disagreements are not vandalism; you engaged in edit warring and you were stopped. That's how it works. The solution to not getting satisfaction on talk pages is to either continue talking or cede the argument; continuous reversion to your favored version will always result in this result. --jpgordon::==( o )15:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
But I started a discussion with Doc yesterday on our talk pages, and it seems that he didn't want to continue discussion cause he didn't respond back . And I engaged in another discussion today about the same topic of Muhammad's Wives talk page, and the other editor Cúchullain didn't want to continue dicussion. Accordingly I reverted their edits cause it seems to be diruptive. Editor just want to delete my imrpovement to the article without being able to discuss their reasoning for doing so. Therefore, I was very willing to discuss, I provided references when asked, and provided my reasoning, the other two editors refrained from doing so. Accordingly, their edits are disruptive to me, since they are not willing to work for improvement, they work for agaisnt imrpovemnt, which is vandalism Kushsinghmd (talk) 10:51 am, Today (UTC−5)
Decline reason:
You still haven't quite addressed the reason for your block, so I am also declining your request. You made a series of changes to Muhammad's wives which were then reverted by three different editors. That should have been a clue that the changes were somewhat controversial and you should have started a discussion on the talkpage at that point. Adding the material again without a consensus from other editors is what eventually brought about your block. To be unblocked (and to prevent future blocks) you will need to understand the way things work and assure the community that you will abide consensus. —DoRD (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
How much of your user page did you copy from Leo III (talk·contribs) and how much did you copy from somewhere else? If you are not Leo III then can you please remove the email address that is not yours and the rest of the user boxes that don't apply. Thanks. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 15:19, 15 June 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
Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa.10:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
