MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 4 thread(s) (older than 4d) to User talk:Nishkid64/Archive 58. |
|||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 195: | Line 195: | ||
The criterion does '''not''' apply to any article that makes '''any credible claim of significance or importance''' even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, [[WP:PROD|propose deletion]], or list the article at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]]. |
The criterion does '''not''' apply to any article that makes '''any credible claim of significance or importance''' even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, [[WP:PROD|propose deletion]], or list the article at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]]. |
||
</blockquote> |
</blockquote> |
||
== Your involvement in the blocking of The Diamond Apex and MarshallBagramyan == |
|||
On 28th June, without any on-record discussion, The Diamond Apex was indefinitely blocked. You claim the account was a sockpuppet account of MarshallBagramyan. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMarshallBagramyan&diff=292878538&oldid=292380074] What evidence do you have to back up that claim, given that there are no editing similarities between the two accounts? Why is there no record of the allegation being discussed? Were you acting on behalf of another administrator when you made the checkuser request? [[User:Meowy|<font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">'''Meowy'''</font>]] 18:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:34, 10 June 2009
Nangparbat Today
- 86.160.112.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Dealt with. CAn't believe there's so much hagiography Wikipedia:Featured article review/Pakistan YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- 86.158.178.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- 86.153.132.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- 86.153.129.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- 86.153.128.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
let me know about u ? r u any authority ?
let me know about u ? r u any authority ?
socks at Illuminati ?
Nishkid, have you run a check user on Liam and Illuminati721? Are they definitely socks? Blueboar (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I have. They're both on the same IP. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Chronic fatigue syndrome
Thanks for protecting the page to try to get more discussion rather then edit warring. Ward20 (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
WP Bangalore Meetup
Following the Mailing list discussion that we had, here's a call for an informal meetup of Bangalore Wikipedians soon. Please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Bangalore/Bangalore3 -- Tinu Cherian - 10:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Indophbia
It’s inappropriate to clump together the edit on text books with “Contemporary societal Indophobia" it makes no sense and is misleading and requires a separate title as it describing phobias of Indians against others not INDOPHOBIA cheers 86.162.69.84 (talk) 13:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- This could also be added under the Pakistan section to indicate textbooks in India are also affected by racism? 86.162.69.84 (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Then the same could be said about the Pakistan section which is based on purely hinduism maybe you should delete that as the sources for those are actually synthesised 86.158.237.180 (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Saffronisation is a form of cultural racism whitewashing history is also a form of cultural racism do you not agree? this is what is being done to text books so its entirely relevant 86.158.237.180 (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- On closer inspection the Pakistani section seems sloppy and highly irrelevant it only talks about war not cultural bias such as depiction on media or books the only relevant bit is at the end 86.158.237.180 (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- One last thing the article is based on racism around South Asians including Pakistanis and Bengalis and on there religion which include hinduism AND islam unless you want to change to whole aim of the article and base it solely on Indians and Hinduism? so its relevant to talk of indian text books aswell as Pakistani ones you cannot simply pick out pakistani issues while completely ignoring the issue of indian text books and there bias hope you see my point cheers 86.158.237.180 (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Something which I stumbled over http://dissidentvoice.org/Jan06/Chatterji07.htm could this be integrated into the article the reach of radical hinduism seems very far 86.158.237.180 (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't really see how Hindu extremism belongs in an article about Indophobia. I was originally accepting of the textbook controversy, but on second glance, it looks to be a purely religiously-motivated issue. At the same time, I would have gladly removed the bit about Pakistani textbooks, but the source states that the Indophobia was geared against Indians and Hindus. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Furthermore, what does Nazism have to do with Indophobia? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- The anti islamic prejudices are related to anti pakistani and bengali sentiment they both are muslim nations 86.158.176.172 (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- "as barbarous invaders and the medieval period as a dark age of Islamic colonial rule which snuffed out the glories of the Hindu empire that preceded it" certainly implies muslims aka all muslims in south asia including pakistanis and bengalis 86.158.176.172 (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Your logic makes no sense. If it makes you feel any better, I'll add this to Islam in India. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Logic lol your logic of allowing pov pushers like wikireader41 to edit makes no sense this sort of protectionism and having a one sided article makes pov pushing more prolific goodbye and i guess ill habe to keep reverting then 86.158.176.172 (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Your logic makes no sense. If it makes you feel any better, I'll add this to Islam in India. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- "as barbarous invaders and the medieval period as a dark age of Islamic colonial rule which snuffed out the glories of the Hindu empire that preceded it" certainly implies muslims aka all muslims in south asia including pakistanis and bengalis 86.158.176.172 (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- The anti islamic prejudices are related to anti pakistani and bengali sentiment they both are muslim nations 86.158.176.172 (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Furthermore, what does Nazism have to do with Indophobia? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't really see how Hindu extremism belongs in an article about Indophobia. I was originally accepting of the textbook controversy, but on second glance, it looks to be a purely religiously-motivated issue. At the same time, I would have gladly removed the bit about Pakistani textbooks, but the source states that the Indophobia was geared against Indians and Hindus. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Something which I stumbled over http://dissidentvoice.org/Jan06/Chatterji07.htm could this be integrated into the article the reach of radical hinduism seems very far 86.158.237.180 (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- One last thing the article is based on racism around South Asians including Pakistanis and Bengalis and on there religion which include hinduism AND islam unless you want to change to whole aim of the article and base it solely on Indians and Hinduism? so its relevant to talk of indian text books aswell as Pakistani ones you cannot simply pick out pakistani issues while completely ignoring the issue of indian text books and there bias hope you see my point cheers 86.158.237.180 (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- On closer inspection the Pakistani section seems sloppy and highly irrelevant it only talks about war not cultural bias such as depiction on media or books the only relevant bit is at the end 86.158.237.180 (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Saffronisation is a form of cultural racism whitewashing history is also a form of cultural racism do you not agree? this is what is being done to text books so its entirely relevant 86.158.237.180 (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Then the same could be said about the Pakistan section which is based on purely hinduism maybe you should delete that as the sources for those are actually synthesised 86.158.237.180 (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Whose point of view?
You keep editing my additions to Kissinger's entry. His main contribution to US foreign policy was, as I wrote, support for military dictatorships and US wars of aggression. Detente with the USSR was another of his policies but that had little effect on the world at large whereas the illegal slaughter of millions of South East Asians was a huge crime and almost equal in numbers of killed to the holocaust of jews by the Nazis, if you don't think information of such importance should be added, that's just your amoral, unhistorical point of view. I'm simply adding crucial facts to the page. What's your agenda? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmodeluxe (talk • contribs) 15:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Neutral Point of Veiw?? That Kissinger was a proponent of US support for right-wing military dictators all over Latin America is a neutral FACT not a point of view. That he, along with Nixon ordered the mass killings of millions of civilians in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia are established historical facts. What does a 'neutral point of view' mean? I don't think it means whitewashing the record of atrocities commited by powerful figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmodeluxe (talk • contribs) 16:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism
Articles on Louis XIV, Louis XVI & Marie Antoinette seem to be the most hit by vandalism. Is there anyway you could semi-protect these articles?? Thanks! --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm afraid the level of vandalism on those pages does not "qualify" for page protection. It's still being managed quite nicely by page watchlisters like yourself. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
excuse me?
What right do you have to revert my changes to the Pinochet article? Can you find anything that doesn't verify what I said? He was a dictator, he killed many and he did so with the saupport of western governments. Wikipedia should be telling the truth and not telling things in a "nice" way that sounds good to ignorant and feeble American values.--217.203.185.53 (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Page protection
Hi. Please see this request: [1] I would appreciate your comment there. Thank you. Grandmaster 11:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Nishkid64 is an apologist for unsavoury right wing characters
Nishkid64 appears to delete many true and established but unpleasant truths about murderous right-wing people such as Henry Kissinger and Gen Pinochet - both responsible for hideous crimes against humanity. Wikipedia is a source by and for THE PEOPLE, not the untouchable elite powers-that-be and those who seek to sanitise and whitewash the truth about people who have had a terrible impact on thousands of lives. In the last few days Nishkid has sanitised enties about both of these characters. My additional info about Kissiger was deleted with a message that Wiki enties should be 'neutral' - which apparently means conforming to the elite view that American Power and it's clients should not be presented in a manner that reflects the moral horror of their actions. If you want to write a nice loving, patriotic hagiography of Kissinger, go ahead but Wiki is democratic and should reflect the moral truth as seen by the masses not the elite. The elite already have the mass media and TV to whitewash their crimes, let's not use Wiki to further their lies and excuses. Yes, Kissinger was a proponent of 'realpolitik' which is a journalistic term that means very little in the real world, whereas the illegal mass bombings of Cambodia and Laos caused incredible amounts of damage and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. If 9/11 was considered an important event, then consider Kissinger's bombings as A HUNDRED TIMES MORE SERIOUS in terms of innocent people killed. Neutral??? Your deletion is anything but. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.45.119 (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Hello Nishikid, thanks for the message about my edits on that rascal Kissinger. You wrote: 'you insist on presenting Kissinger as some murderous criminal (which I agree with, but that's here nor there).' If you agree with that idea, I assume it's because you are aware of the tragic histories of Cambodia and Laos and the part he played in it. Realpolitik is a fancy word that doesn't quite, in my mind, really convey the essense of mass murder as national policy. I'm sure Kissinger, the American establishment and conservatives everywhere would prefer the term realpolitik but why is it the editorial policy of Wiki admins to delete truths inconvenient to authority. The blatant bias in favour of establishment friendly waffle instead of the unpleasant truth is called 'neutral' by Wiki admins, but it is far from neutral - it is a clear bias in favour protecting the powerful from the reality of their actions being more widely known. If the term 'realpolitik' implies supporting right-wing dictators and using massive violence against civilians it is clearly a euphemism employed by the US gov to hide a hideous truth - why should Wiki use the same invented euphemism to hide the truth when its mission is clearly to educate and inform. As I said above, ther mainstream US media exists to churn out Government friendly propaganda about Us wars, but why does Wiki have to follow the same devious path? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmodeluxe (talk • contribs) 18:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi
Can you kindly take a look at Sikh Terrorism which should point to Sikh Extremism! It is an article, where since its inception has been edited to the point of invisibility by pro-extremists who wish to hide facts about the recent violence in Austria and basically fragment the article into less relative satellite articles which have no relevance to many actual reported news referenced articles which have been subsequently deleted removed or hijacked. Thanks Morbid Fairy (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Dear Morbid Fairy aka Satanoid see here , you have been previously reprimanded for this type of behaviour under the Satanoid account and on your WPOuting violation here. People are assuming Good Faith on your new account so I suggest you do the same. Your behaviour towards Sineed is very bad. Please stop spamming every editor on Wikipedia and claiming to be a victim.--Sikh-history (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- For Nishkid64's information, I have received similar posts from the above two users. There is clearly some bad blood and a lot of pre-history between them. Rather than delve into that, I have looked at the article and posted my views on its current state at [[2]]. No doubt another pair of fresh eyes will be useful, especially fromsomeone with that battery of stars on their user page.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Not bad blood, but I want people to be clear with what kind of person we are dealing with.--Sikh-history (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- For Nishkid64's information, I have received similar posts from the above two users. There is clearly some bad blood and a lot of pre-history between them. Rather than delve into that, I have looked at the article and posted my views on its current state at [[2]]. No doubt another pair of fresh eyes will be useful, especially fromsomeone with that battery of stars on their user page.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
New Nangparbat strikes
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seven_Sister_States&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States-Pakistan_skirmishes&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ladakh&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burma&action=history Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Also it appears that my talkpage semiprotection has expired. Since I don't like Nangparbat being able to leave any message on my talkpage, can I have my talkpage semiprotection renewed? Thanks Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
You have email
With compliments. Jehochman Talk 23:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
So you deleted "The Maya Calendar and the European Agenda"?!
17:55, 9 June 2009 Nishkid64 deleted "The Maya Calendar and the European Agenda" (CSD A7: Article about subject that does not assert significance).
So in your opinion a documentary about Prodesis (yes, click on it!) does not assert any significance? Do you know there are ways of communicating your doubts on Wikipedia? "TALK" for instance? Mirrormundo (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The Maya Calendar and the European Agenda / Prodesis
ok, thanks for the explanation. but what about the article i wrote about Prodesis, shouldn't that be removed too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirrormundo (talk • contribs) 01:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The maya calender and the European Agenda
The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.
Your involvement in the blocking of The Diamond Apex and MarshallBagramyan
On 28th June, without any on-record discussion, The Diamond Apex was indefinitely blocked. You claim the account was a sockpuppet account of MarshallBagramyan. [3] What evidence do you have to back up that claim, given that there are no editing similarities between the two accounts? Why is there no record of the allegation being discussed? Were you acting on behalf of another administrator when you made the checkuser request? Meowy 18:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)