Hey, I have noticed that that jerk has been targeting you. When dealing with admins in relation to his actions, remember to show them this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nangparbat/Archive. Only a handful of admins know the protocol for stopping Nangparbat.
The report actually comes to generally positive conclusions about Pakistanis and Indians. And the report also states its own unreliability due to the small numbers used. I am not the only one to reach the conclusion that the sentiments you expressed in the article were incorrect and unsupported. Alan16talk22:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and what makes you think that I did not mean it to be a positive reflection on British Pakistanis??? This is a reliable source and the fact that the report was published and is still available on the website means their is enough merit in it if you look at it from NPOV Wikireader41 (talk) 22:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The report states that there has been a decline in the number of teenage pregnancies for Pakistanis, quote:
Pakistani women – much higher than the white average twenty years ago – showed a consistent fall over the period, and were very similar to whites in recent years.
And I believe you do not intend to be positive because you failed to mention in your statement on the British Pakistanis article that Pakistanis are praised for having almost all child births in marriage whereas for whites it is almost half. Alan16talk23:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
feel free to mention both those points. i do not see any issues with it. the fact still remains that they had the among the highest teenage birth rate and even though it has been falling recently. Looks like some degree of assimilation is taking place. i am sure lot of people would take issue with a statement that praised child births within a a marriage especially if you are implying heterosexual marriage. Wikireader41 (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so you think having a child when a single parent is better? And read the quote, The pregnancy rating is basically identical to white people. So the comment is wrong. Alan16talk00:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I prsonally dont. but many people think it does not impact children in any negative way. perhaps thats why this practice is relatively common in the west. have you looked at Table 2. also do not turn a blind eye to 'Key Points'
-A method of estimating age-specific fertility
rates from cross-sectional surveys of households
has proved reliable.
-About 30 white teenagers have a baby, out of
every 1,000 at risk.
- Teenage motherhood is more common among
Caribbean, Pakistani and, especially, Bangladeshi
women than among white women.- But young Indian women are less likely than
whites to have a baby before they are 20.- Many white and most Caribbean teenage
mothers are unmarried; but the majority of
births to teenagers of South Asian origin are
within marriage .
-The rates of teenage births among white and
Caribbean women are stable, but there has been
a marked decline in early parenthood in South
Asian communities in Britain.
have a good day. 00:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Reply (II)
The IP address is not blocked, so I worked under the assumption that they could edit under the Wikipedia policy Anybody can edit. I have never came into contact with Nangparbat, and know nothing about him. I have broken no rules, and will continue to edit without breaking rules. Keep your attacks and POV to yourself. All my edits to these controversial topics are sourced. Alan16talk23:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly refrain from labeling me as a trouble maker... I maintain a very NPOV and WP:RS .... and keep in mind wp:civil policy before calling someone names such as rubbish, trouble-maker and calling my edits as problem.... Adil your (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work, very much. I have very much enjoyed working with you, and hope we do so again, and that we get to agree more than we disagree, and find common ground where we can't. All the best.- sinneed (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He said he believes his behavior is consistent with the wikipedia's policies. I am troubled by this. I do not regard his behavior as compliant with the obligations on all of us to behave accountably, and to try to give civil meaningful answers to civil questions.
Has your interest in the name of the article survived?
I am troubled too. I do not know if you realize that I am the original author who started this article. A major part of the article has been contributed by me. So yes my interest in the article is very much alive no matter what the title is. I think we should continue the debate and revert the name back as soon as we have consensus ;-). Cheers. Wikireader41 (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't know that.
How would you feel about a name halfway between? Instead of:
At WP:Requested moves there are tools for polls. Have you ever initiated one? We could initiate a poll on the original name, but I think one of the compromise names is more likely to succeed. Proponent of the most recent name say our preferred choice is POV. And we think theirs is POV. So I think our poll should rule out both names.
It's like trying to arm-wrestle octopi. :) I have people on both sides "He is great! Yay!" and "He is a fiend! Boo!". Thanks for the support. Much appreciated. :) - sinneed (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It actually isn't the POV pushers that bother me. It is the other editors (and most especially admins) that assume that if you oppose a POV push that you have a POV. I have written a very early (less than 1st) draft of what I hope will be an essay on that problem. ;)- sinneed (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neat about Gill. Ah, neutrality...we are humans, we can only strive for neutrality... if nothing else our societies, languages and training filter our view of the world. Best of luck to you. If this is a holiday weekend for you, have a happy one... and if not have a great weekend anyway! :)- sinneed (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I feel then this should be restricted to few things like wars, CBM's, Indo-Pak, Indo-Kashmir and Pak-Kashmir meetings etc only. The rest of day to day affairs should be cited in the main page. What do you say? Kashmirspeaks {talk} —Preceding undated comment added 19:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Hello, Wikireader41. You have new messages at Ruslik0's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
sorry I dont like eating pineapples though I dont mind pina coladas once in a while. I read the links to dawn. Thank you very much Kindly. I think Dawn has been taken over by RAW agents. You know Mohajirs anyway always were more Indians than Pakistani. ;-)Wikireader41 (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well than make a cup of pine colda without the rum, it will you. Also Pakistanis were perviously Indian whether Majors nor no majors.yousaf465
Hello, Wikireader41. You have new messages at Talk:2009 Gojra riots. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I didn't put the Cristine fair comment, it was already there, I merely shifted it. I only added two lines regarding "Support" with 7 refs to back it up, so POV pushers like you can't remove it... Stop posting these silly warnings, You clearly don't have a case... And I am not accusing YellowMonkey, I am Exposing him, and for your information, I already have reported him... You don't need to worry about that... And please stop Pushing POV... Adil your (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On 4 August, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2009 Gojra riots, which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.
: 10 August 2009