User talk:Wikireader41/Archive5

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

re Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive756#Personal attacks by User:Wikireader

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. The discussion is about the topic Personal attacks by User:Wikireader41. Thank you. Your carefully considered response would be appreciated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove or alter other editors contributions on the basis that they may belong to a particular culture, religion, political movement, idealology, or any reason other than violation of WP policy. Do not, under any circumstances, refer to another editors perceived bias'. WP:NPOV allows all viewpoints to be represented according to WP:Due weight, not just the ones an individual feels is valid. To be clear, personal attacks upon another editor will result in you being sanctioned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

Articles for deletion nomination of February 2010 Khyber bombing

I have nominated February 2010 Khyber bombing, 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/February 2010 Khyber bombing. 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.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ironholds (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

notability

With Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/February_2010_Khyber_bombing closed as no consensus, the closing admin supported your idea of having a broader discussion pertaining to the notability of terrorism events. I had been wondering if you intend to open the discussion since this is originally your idea. happy editing Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you can go ahead if you wish. I do not claim copyright to that idea but will join in;-)Wikireader41 (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I may have a different opinion, but i do think its important that at least we have a discusssion open to all who would like to contribute to it (and at least come to a consesnus on the next step of what if any change should be adopted). Ill start a neutrally worded discussion (shortly) at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts) to see what the interest level is first for dealing with these events. Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
great. you might want to look at WP:TERRORIST first. though in real world everybody calls these attacks 'terrorist attacks' on WP it is considered a bad word.Wikireader41 (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up on that.Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Ive posted it as best I could to be neutral at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts). I have not stated my point of view here (at least tried not to), Ive only posted to open discussion which regardless of my thought here i think is important to have the community to weigh in. Happy editing Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Your February 2010 Khyber Mosque bombing article is pretty incorrect they were two twin suicide bombings in the Tirah Valley area of Khyber and the Darmela area, you should rename it at least. Visit http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/pakistan/30-killed-in-suicide-attack-on-Pak-mosque/articleshow/5588777.cms USAir Flight 621 (talk) 11:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes this is about the first bombing. what is so unclear about that. if you want to start an article on the second bombing go right ahead. Wikireader41 (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

Warning - reported at administrators' noticeboard

You have been reported at the administrators' noticeboard for your recent comment at the 1965 Indo-Pak War talk page. --Hj108 (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

I would refer you to my notice a few sections above. You may wish to appeal your block; you may find it useful to undertake not to refer to other editors on the basis of their ethnicity, religion, or nationality in a demeaning, aggressive, or sarcastic manner. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 4 March 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).

Wikireader41 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Ok I wont do it again

Decline reason:

It's important that you understand why as opposed to just promising not to do it again. I think you should consider the standard offer and take a little time off. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:06, 5 March 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).

Wikireader41 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As per WP:INDEF I do agree to refrain from the behaviour that led to this block. I have made a committment below. I does appear to me froms LHvU's comments here [1] and above that his intention was that the block be lifted after I make such a committment. therefore I request the block be lifted. while I do realize that my behaviour violated policy I do also feel that I can continue to make useful contributions to WP as I have done in the past and an indefinite block appears excessive

Decline reason:

Less than a month ago, you got off on a technicality. At that point you were aware that continued similar actions would lead to a block. As such, this block is clearly required to protect other editors on this project since the behaviour has continued. I will reduce this to 1 week - not as punishment, but to give you an opportunity to clearly redefine your future interactions on Wikipedia. Editors from across the world should be able to edit according to consensus without personal attacks due to race, religion, etc. I will also warn: future similar occurrences should lead to much longer blocks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:47, 6 March 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.

I undertake not to refer to other editors on the basis of their ethnicity, religion, or nationality in a demeaning, aggressive, or sarcastic manner. Can I please be unblocked now. Wikireader41 (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010