This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Reopen previous thread: "Copyright problem: Human rights abuses in Kashmir"
You simply collapsed the thread with the hatnote: "...Simply unnecessary because it didn't tell me which part exactly was copy-pasted from the website adduced....", and the edit summary "...I have tried to be extra polite with you Mehrajmir13, probably more than you rightfully deserve. My talk page is not for people to trample on....".
Just because he didn't provide a diff, doesn't mean you should dismiss his allegation.
So, the concern is copyright violations. He is referring to your edit here. It contains verbatim text from sources. Why didn't you respond to that? Sorry if I'm mistaken, but this seems like a valid concern. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
What is your problem Anna? He hid a lengthy portion of the content and I couldn't find which edit he was referring to. I didn't dismiss it, see my contrib I have posted two, not one, but two separate comments asking him to clarify which portions were copied from alleged source, www.flonnet.com/fl1707/17070360.htm and so far he has not replied. Don't assume things for me Anna. You've not helped me so far. You repeated pretty much the same thing (except with a diff). I want you to pinpoint and quote here which lines were copied. It's disheartening to see editors like you waiting for the opportunity to condescend and throw around conjecture as opposed to getting what I am saying. I think it is judgemental of you to say that I have "dismissed" his allegations in any way. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 12:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Forgive me, but my ISP has been giving me trouble for the past few days. I cannot access most of the sites you added in the edit in question, but was able to just a little while ago, and remember verbatim text from a few. I will try again. However, there is this:
As for being "judgemental", I do think immediately collapsing a thread without a reply is sort of dismissive. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much. This is more helpful.
I do think immediately collapsing a thread without a reply is sort of dismissive. - well, then we will just have to live with our disagreements and agree to disagree about this but let's refrain from labelling each other. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 12:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
ANI Notice
[Mrt3366 cut the heading short at 13:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)]
I made a couple of further improvements and resubmitted it (ECLAIR).
Thanks for your patience, Roberto — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberto Bagnara (talk • contribs) 08:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Hey there Mr.T I just updated the page for Protagonize . I added a couple of references to add upon to the notability. BTW I have this list of weblinks that show some of the recognition that protagonize has earned online . should I add them as sources too ? Finally , I haven't removed the deletion template . I have had bad experiences from removing some of them. So I'll Leave you to it.
Mrt. Read WP:VANDthis edit was not vandalism. Please be a little more careful with your choice of words. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay. I got it but I noticed you also did the same a few days back - if I'm not mistaken - on the same article. The thing is I would have been better off marking it as disruptive edit. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 12:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
You are mistaken, I reverted it as undue. Happy new year BTW Darkness Shines (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
That post refers to a BLP, adding unsourced content to a BLP repeatedly is a nono. However from WP:VAND "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism." Darkness Shines (talk) 13:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I won't necessarily call it a "bad edit", rather an unnecessary edit and I see you've reverted it saying "AWB is not a very good authority on such things". Well, it's me who deemed it okay. So, don't put it on AWB. I am not opposed to your reversal BTW. Cheers, Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 11:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
You probably don't remember this, but a short while ago you declined an article I submitted for creation for failing the wiki's notability guidelines and for having too few sources. While I understand why it was rejected, and I'm not here to argue for its creation, I recently came across a page for very similar material that has even fewer sources than the article I submitted, and is less extensive. I was wondering what that page did right that mine did wrong? Thanks, LoveWaffle (talk) 10:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Pratyya(Happy New Year) — is wishing you a HappyNewYear! Welcome the 2024. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2024 goes well for you.
You accepted edit 09:15, 3 January 2013 by Adnan.jsr identified as "(Reverted 1 edit by 165.121.80.58 (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Widr". It was not, did you look at the page? see User_talk:Adnan.jsr#2012_Delhi_gang_rape_case
Is not edit 07:57, 3 January 2013 by Widr actually vandalism, as he provided no reason to reject the contributions other than the identity of the editors?165.121.80.58 (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Mrt3366. You have new messages at Talk:Kashmir conflict. Message added 10:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello Mrt3366, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Free FM 89.0FM, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I added a newspaper article about the station as a reference. Licenced radio stations are usually considered notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Can you explain why you think this crap belongs in the lede when the body has nothing on comparing stats in other countries? Darkness Shines (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I didn't put it there in the lede; I merely transferred it to the notes sections. The comparison (I think a comparative stats-table ought to be included into the body too) gives much needed perspective into the claims, that's all. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 06:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
You are on 4RR self revert or be reported for edit warring and source misrepresentation. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
You have crossed that line before me, please report me and I will accept the consensus, I was not doing that with an aim to edit-war btw. Report me and let some third party opinion in; that will be best. Also I don't think my edit was any more ″unacceptable″(as you so cogently put it) than yours. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 13:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
BTW this is a copyvio I think[2] When quoting does it not need to be attributed? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Which part do you claim to be a copy-vio????? Please pin-point and I will paraphrase it. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 15:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi There back!
Hello, you asked me to clarify my statement regarding this comment. To clarify, I wrote it having grown increasingly frustrated having read the talk page regarding [Kashmir Conflict]. I quite understand there are views from both sides, but I don't really care.
— Sibaz (15:05, 11 January 2013) — (continues after insertion below)
Hello, welcome on my talk. I am going to reply in this fashion. You please answer in the traditional fashion. That way the order will be easier to follow.
Now, about your above comment, it's really fine by me. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 15:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to find out about Kashmir, and who thinks what and what if anything has been said pro and anti those views. It seemed to me the whole talk page had descended into petty edit war. I'll re-itterate again, that you might have a point. I was not trying to argue against your point.
— Sibaz (15:05, 11 January 2013) — (continues after insertion below)
Purely that in making the point, you were seeking to remove (potentially erroneous statements) which seemed to me to be of the kind I wanted to read. Similarly our of your counter arguers was seeking to remove other points.
— Sibaz (15:05, 11 January 2013) — (continues after insertion below)
I don't necessarily disagree, but I would like to clarify that
I don't recognize which part of content you're referring to.
See, although your opinion is not insignificant to our project, Wikipedia's articles are not exactly tasked with delivering merely the type of content which one reader/editor would or wouldn't like to hear. We try to cover as much notable, verifiable content as possible. I mean personally inclinations are of no import in an article.
As you hopefully know, there are policies and principles which we all need to abide by. Our personal opinions - when it comes to making an edit - don't actually matter much any more than what is permitted by these guidelines. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 15:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
My personal connection with Kashmir, is as I said in my post, through the numerous Kashmir ex-pats which I consider friends, and I can attest that even extremely rational people seem unable to stand back and take a subjective view on the subject.
— Sibaz (15:05, 11 January 2013) — (continues after insertion below)
Hence (as I said earlier) I sought to hear ALL the arguments, and form my own view. As it is, my view seems to be that India and Pakistan seem intent on behaving like children on the matter. I'm sure Ghandi would be horrified at recent Indian behaviour and Pakistan, seems intent on portraying itself as a terrorist state at the moment, which helps no-one, least of all itself. It's a tragic story,
— Sibaz (15:05, 11 January 2013) — (continues after insertion below)
You bet! I am in full agreement with you. But, aren't all these things beside the point here? Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 15:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
but I found your comments in the Talk page (and your edits removing what I thought was fair comment) unhelpful.
— Sibaz (15:05, 11 January 2013) — (continues after insertion below)
I am not sure if I got it correctly. Are you saying that my removal of comments were unfair? I don't remember removing any comments. What did I remove from the talk? or Are you referring to people's comments? I was in fact in favor of the two Presidents' comments. But please read WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE, I think they might give you some insight on the issue. And once you do that I don't expect you to just agree with me, I want you to concisely elucidate your perceived unhelpfulness of my behavior a bit further, only if you wouldn't mind of course. Because I like to think I am an honest guy. It will help me tremendously if you shed light on the specific issue. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 15:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Like I said it's an emotive subject, and were it something closer to my heart, I'd probably behave the same as you, but as someone neutral on the subject I felt DS's suggestion of a rewrite was particularly helpful. Regards, (sibaz (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC))
I will refrain from commenting on the emotiveness of the subject. I think some sections most notably, excessively lengthy and higgledy-piggledy Human Rights Abuses sections do need to be rewritten in a perspicuous and terse manner in order to reduce the article size to below 80kb. I beseech you to simply comment below and if your comment is short I will be replying in the traditional fashion also. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 15:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry not sure If I'm editing this correctly, I'll try to get straight to the point. As I understand it the (ex)president said 2 things of note: 1)(in reference to india) "Why are you killing innocent civilians in Kashmir?" and 2) that the Pakistani government formed militant groups. Point (1) was in a series of rhetorical questions, and so is POV. Point (2) was not, and as it's come from an ex-president of a country and relates to the behaviour of that government (at an unspecificed time), I take from it that it comes from a source of note (ie an ex-president talking about things he has first hand knowledge). In the comment you made (on 10:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)) under the interview section on the kashmir conflict talk page, but I took KBBs point as being trying to quote musharaff (and summarise) and your view as being trying re-itterate that all of what the presidents said (including point 2) was POV. Now I accept that sometimes when a quote is summarised, it can end up smelling of bias, but it's still a quote, and the unbiased editor should try to get down to the core points of a quote, and if anything give both sides of an argument on those points. You seemed to be arguing that the views of an ex-president which might relate to government policy under his authority, are simply POV, which smells of bias in the other direction.
— Sibaz (16:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)) — (continues after insertion below)
Wow you paraphrased the whole argument here. Not sure if that was needed. Use diffs from now on that would be useful and time-saving. You say, I seemed to be arguing that the views of an ex-president which might relate to government policy under his authority, are simply POV?? Where? I remember the exact opposite. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 06:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Hence I assume you don't attribute the weight to what he said. As far as I'm concerned Musharraf's comments have as much weight as Bush's might, and if Bush was to say the US is sponsoring terrorism, I'd believe it at a heartbeat. It's WAY more than POV. Your comment of 10.54 makes my point entirely. KBB follows by saying that it amounts to a confession, which I tend to agree with (on point 2). Your comment of 07:39 is overly dismissive of KBB's point. Your comment of 17:12 I'm in complete agreement with, but KBB's retort is clearly offended.
— Sibaz (16:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)) — (continues after insertion below)
No, not KBB, I said that Musharraf's admission was similar to a confession but later I stepped aside from my argument to avoid further entanglement. However, I agree, as you also noted, on many levels. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 06:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
By the time the section 'Human Rights' comes along, you seem to be in an edit war with everyone, and DS suggests a re-write. Again your retorts are overly dismissive of other peoples points and use terms like "Allow me to avoid commenting on patently nonsensical and irrelevant allegations", which is effectively disregarding everything you disagree with as 'patently nonsensical and irrelevant' (a comment bound to start a flame war). Now I'm not trying to judge what you've said, and I apologise if I've misrepresented your opinion. The point is you have one. And that is no bad thing, but you seem to me to be applying a value judgement on things.
— Sibaz (16:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)) — (continues after insertion below)
I am sorry but I don't understand which value judgement you're referring to. You don't need to apologize for anything, but I believe you've not carefully read my comments which ensued the line you're upset about. I again commented just after that and one more time. I have tried to be succinct and fair here as well as there. I do not wish to re-iterate what I believe. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 06:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Your value might be entirely correct, but it's still not neutral, and a subject this delicate needs to be handled more delicately. Hence I supported DS's call for a rewrite. The sandbox idea seems necessary to keep the (edit) warring parties happy (it would allow changes to be reviewed for neutrality before cluttering the edit history), but you attack it as a waste of time.
— Sibaz (16:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)) — (continues after insertion below)
Sandbox should only be used, I think, for serious disputes (at least, needs demonstration of contesting claims in equally reliable sources) and not some random, unfounded objection (I am not dismissing or belittling anything, that's what they are. Look into the matter and you'll see it as I do). Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 06:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
You then went off on one about Rape in India, and tried to argue that the whole issue of Indian Soldiers raping of Moslem civilians in Kashmir (or not) is not a matter for the Kashmir Conflict page.
— Sibaz (16:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)) — (continues after insertion below)
I suggested on the page, "they be fundamentally re-written to highlight" only the "major issues" as opposed to the details of "specific incidents, let the details be merged to the spin-offs. This article is far too large to be hosting these sections." ← This what I wrote after DS quite legitimately suggested they need to be pruned and excess contents could be sent to those articles covering human rights abuses and rape. Rape in India, Rape in Jammu and Kashmir, Human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir. Come on dear, it's not like I was the only guy suggesting these things. I was asking for a move not deletion. See WP:SPINOUT. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 06:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Another statement, which seems to miss the point (it's the way India is accused of repressing on the one side, with Pakistan's militants killing on the other). It is pretty much key to the issue, if you're arguing it against India, so it is relevant.
— Sibaz (16:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)) — (continues after insertion below)
Are you suggesting that it's relevant and a key issue simply because it's arguing against India? See, Wikipedia doesn't operate that way. Wikipedia operates on verifiability and reliability of source being used to verify the content. The context matters too. I quote, "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 06:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Anyway, I don't want to get down into the issue, is simply seems to me that your arguing against something which seems obviously relevant is just a sign of how passionately you believe in one side of the argument, and that is as good a reason as any why you should be overly cautious at scrutinising the neutrality of your own edits. Hence I support DS's intention to go through it all. Anyway, Peace out (sibaz (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC))
Of course, every editor should be scrutinizing the neutrality of their own edits to such controversial article regardless of the level of their passion. Okay, cheers, Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 06:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
The section I deleted from the page on the Kashmir conflict (11:46, 11 January 2013) was indeed relevant and sourced, but I deleted it because it was repeated verbatim in the next paragraph (and fit better in that paragraph). I won't revert your edit until you got a chance at looking at it. Josnyg (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate your attempt to discuss it with me. Now, could you specify which line of which section repeats it verbatim (word for word)? Only in case of a verbatim repetition can that unilateral decision to remove sourced content along with sources, be justified. You had a lot of choices but you chose to delete it altogether. thank you. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 06:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I did some more clean up and check if it's alright. On an unrelated note, I suggest to you in good faith, if you are unsure about the status of your edit or if you think it might be seen as a COI please use {{Request edit}}. Thank you. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 06:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
You recently removed a change I had made on Alexandre Dumas to reflect that he was black. The change, I believe, contextualized, in a geopolitical sense, the biography of said person. Your counter argument may be that it is later mentioned in the article that he was descendant of slaves, which would require the assumption that all slaves of the period were black.
More generally, I would like to take issue with the unilateral way in which the decision was reached. Surely, no one person, or two persons for that matter, should be the arbiters of what is constructive and what is not. As a principle I believe "individuals may add, but individuals cannot subtract" from a shared resource.
You guessed it right. Apart from that, the term "black" is often used in the West to describe people whose skin is darker(not exactly "black"). Hence, the usage of the term "black" is undue/confusing. Use something more perspicuous. He was "black french" seems redundantly racial awkward to me. The article does mention quite clearly that he was a descendent of slaves. If you want to still allude to his ethnicity, then please use African french or something like that to make it clear. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 10:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I must have removed it by mistake while editing. I wasn't even aware that I removed it. Sorry and thanks for pointing out the error.
That is acceptable but you didn't put the {{notability|Biographies}} back which you removed, why? I beileve the article still has notability issues. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 06:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I noticed you added a template on the article because of a recent link i added. I realize it is primary and am removing it. I have read the notability issues and I do not think this article has one. We can discuss this further.ThanksRishu ag (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Don't panic the template is not alluding to any problem that can be solved through removing one of the references. You don't need to remove anything just yet. You need to add secondary references (newspaper articles, independent reports on her, etc). Do you get it now?
P.S. the templates are assessment of the issues of the page and not just the last edit-changes. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 07:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Discussion on the AFT5 Request for Comment
Hey Mrt3366 - this is to notify you that there is a discussion starting on the Article Feedback RfC talkpage that has ramifications for the RfC itself. Your input is much appreciated :). Thanks! and apologies if I've missed anyone Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited All India Radio Monitoring Service, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Simla (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello Mrt3366. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Margulies collection, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: An art collection is not eligible for speedy deletion under criterion A7. Thank you. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 09:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Naina Ashwin Kumar, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages CIE, Hyderabad and St Mary's College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for this [3].Handyunits (talk) 06:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Mrt3366. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 11:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rape culture. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.Stop removing reliably sourced content.Darkness Shines (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Saunter on mate ;). You are just as guilty as I am if not more. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 15:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.
Thank you. If you won't mind, please refrain from commenting on my talk unless it's absolutely unavoidable, youdon't need to use templates here with me. I am aware of these policies. (strikethroughed @ 07:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC), because it was giving wrong impression:I am confused)
sticking to "did you know we had a policy here" mentality tends to be counter-productive in resolving the issue, as it can be construed as being patronising and uncivil.
Please try and understand that I appreciate your efforts but they are not helping right now. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 15:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Technically, both you and DS should be blocked :) But, seeing that you've taken this to a noticeboard, I've protected the article until it gets worked out. --regentspark (comment) 15:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Darkness Shines
Admin Bwilkins offers an interesting suggestion here regarding Darkness Shines. Since you are the more experienced editor of ther two of us, perhaps you could start its implementation? Handyunits (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I am honoured that you extended this offer to me. Also Bwilkins is a very judicious admin and I value his opinion very highly. Having said that, I don't want to get anybody blocked much less indefinitely. DS needs to take a few days or even weeks off. Now, if you feel that he is contravening policies and guidelines in a way that is worthy of an indef block then please proceed towards WP:ARV. I might even support you if you provide a sufficiently compelling rationale. That's all.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Philip Candelas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
You recently created a new article titled theta operator. It is currently an "orphan", i.e. no other articles link to it. If you know of other articles that ought to link to it, could you add those links? Michael Hardy (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
PS: I did some edits on it, including setting "theta" in lower case. Notice also that "Further reading", as a section heading, needs a lower-case rather than capital initial "r". That is codified in WP:MOS. One doesn't capitalize an initial letter merely because it's in a section heading. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Anything else I can do for that article? Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 06:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Arbitration Committee Notice
Dear Mrt3366, I wanted you to know that I also got a notice from User:Darkness Shines on my talk page that looks like yours (in history). You should know that DS placed that banner incorrectly and it makes him look like an administrator. He is not an administrator. Moreover, it looks as though he is from of Arbitration Committee. Again he is not nor has he ever been a member of Arbitration Committee. Like me, you may have been doing something innocent, but the banner states unfairly, "If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic." This is boilerplate language given to anyone who gets this template. It does not mean in any way that you did something wrong. Furthermore, although there is very little information about this banner, you may remove it from your page. Your name was also listed by DS on a noticeboard. In my case, I believe this is wrong because I'm not interested in editing in this area. You are not being investigated in any way. As a protest I have written a strikethrough mark through my name at the following location. [4] If you are not happy about your treatment by DS or being listed on this noticeboard, then I would encourage you to do the same. I hope I have clarified your situation as I had to find out more about mine and wanted to share the results with you. I wish you good editing in Wikipedia, Crtew (talk) 09:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I askedAmatulic about that, he assured me not to be concerned. I suggest you do the same. BTW, Bwilkins told Handyunits that "DS might be heading towards an indef block". I know DS for quite some time and believe it or not I have co-operated with and even vouched for him one or two times. I must say what DS has been doing lately —and the way he has been conducting himself while following through his edits— has rather saddened me. I have removed my name also. Thank you very much. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 12:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Your name was restored on this notification list earlier today, but later editors took it off the list. Editors agreed that DS had not followed proper procedure and as you noted earlier he had a COI in that he was not uninvolved and could be using this as a strategy to quash other editors. Good luck in the future and I wish you many happy edits! Crtew (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Looks like the matter has been resolved. Thanks for keeping me updated.Handyunits (talk) 07:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Happy Belated Birthday
Happy Birthday!
Hope you had a very happy birthday on your special day! Best wishes, ```Buster Seven Talk 14:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Belated wishes MrT --sarvajna (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank God that some remembered, I thought everyone forgot. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 06:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
A cup of tea for you!
Thank you for staying on top of things and making rational arguments in a difficult situation! Crtew (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanx. It was not much difficult for me though. I have been through worse situations in wikipedia . Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 12:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Unexplained
[5] The IP is probably Highstakes00. He still follows me around on occasion. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Some falafel for you!
Belated Happy Birthday Mike! TheStrikeΣagle 10:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Teamwork Barnstar
I think it's great that you found a source that opposed your initial position on Human rights abuses in Kashmir and it shows real class to be so open about it. No one can blame you for wanting to be scrupulous before making a negative claim about an entire group of people and bravo for finding a better citation for that negative claim. v/r - TP 14:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Do not falsely accuse me of WP:NPA when I have made none [6]. Please read up the definition of WP:NPA and refrain from allegations. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 12:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I have had enough of you, refrain from making poxy comments on my talk. I will delete it in future, Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 12:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Rather than edit warring over your additions or changes to the articles, you might want to seek wider input first, particularly since the 'in Pakistan' claim has been there for a while. You don't want to be accused of tendentious editing. Also, try not to shout at mar4d. --regentspark (comment) 12:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The burden of evidence falls on me and I can deliver that burden. But I don't see where I am wrong here, do you? BTW, I was not trying to shout at his demeanor, I simply capitalized them to emphasize them.
The proposal is fair: Include "a Pakistani-controlled region" as opposed to "Region of Pakistan", for clarity's sake.Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 13:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Much better to discuss that on the talk page. This sort of thing is controversial and you'll be better off seeking wider input or attempting to come to a compromise that somehow includes both pieces of information. (See the Arunachal Pradesh article as an example.) --regentspark (comment) 13:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't remember editing Arunachal Pradesh. And I don't mind including "a state administered by India" rather than "a state of India" if the people don't object there. But I believe there are fundamental differences between constitutional status of Gilgit-Baltistan and Arunachal Pradesh just as there are huge differences, in terms of constitutional status, between Kashmir and Taiwan. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 13:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
We have BRD, fine but this BRD tradition is not to serve as an excuse for reverting good-faith and factually correct fair edits to improve a page simply because one doesn't like the changes.
Actually that's what BRD is for. Boldly add stuff to the article. It gets reverted. And then you discuss it. If the claim is factual, getting wider consensus should be an easy matter and you shouldn't need to edit war on it. --regentspark (comment) 16:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong I don't defend edit warring.
I am talking about the abuse of WP:BRD -- The page says, "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense."...Also see WP:FILIBUSTERS. That's what I have experienced recently. There are many who don't like getting involved. You know it RP. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 16:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
You are mistaken, I reverted it as undue. Happy new year BTW Darkness Shines (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Resolved
Done Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
TheStrikeΣagle 10:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Mrt3366 likes this. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 10:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
