m Signing comment by 63.87.61.59 - "→About the AL Qaeda article: " |
99.3.86.25 (talk) |
||
Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
==Please comment on [[Talk:Srebrenica massacre#rfc_851F8D5|Talk:Srebrenica massacre]]== |
==Please comment on [[Talk:Srebrenica massacre#rfc_851F8D5|Talk:Srebrenica massacre]]== |
||
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the [[Wikipedia:Request for comment|request for comment]] on '''[[Talk:Srebrenica massacre#rfc_851F8D5|Talk:Srebrenica massacre]]'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding|suggestions for responding]]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from [[Wikipedia:Feedback request service]].'' <!-- Template:FRS message -->— [[User:RFC bot|RFC bot]] ([[User talk:RFC bot|talk]]) 20:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC) |
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the [[Wikipedia:Request for comment|request for comment]] on '''[[Talk:Srebrenica massacre#rfc_851F8D5|Talk:Srebrenica massacre]]'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding|suggestions for responding]]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from [[Wikipedia:Feedback request service]].'' <!-- Template:FRS message -->— [[User:RFC bot|RFC bot]] ([[User talk:RFC bot|talk]]) 20:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
== Get off my fucking back.. You God-damn little Indian RETARD == |
|||
Get off my fucking back.. You God-damn little Indian RETARD. Go and bully around someone else. AND you can shove up your SPI up you Indian ASS. |
Revision as of 23:44, 25 July 2012
|
|||||||||
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Tibi
As you one that reverted me please explain to me how what it was misrepresentation here is the source [1] and here is the relevant quote "In Islam, freedom of faith conceded to others applies only to Jews and Christians, but it is a limited freedom and attached to the lower legal status of dhimmitude, or believers viewed as inferior to Muslims. By modern legal standards this is a violation of the human rights-based freedom of faith, rather than a variety of tolerance as commonly seen".What is the proper way to introduce it?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
DYK for Rape in Pakistan
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
AN3
Hi, there is report at WP:AN3 concerning you. --SMS Talk 21:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Barack Obama on Twitter
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Barack Obama on Twitter. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Editor's Barnstar | ||
For your DYK! I guess its our first. I am sure there are more to come. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 09:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC) |
- Thank you, I do have another DYK in the works :o) Darkness Shines (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you ever discuss or seek consensus about your own massive changes you do to Pakistan, Islam or Muslim-related pages? The sole purpose of you being on the Wikipedia (under the light of your own Wikipedia "edits") IS to bully around (through using various Wikipedia venues and/or twisting, misinterpreting or even cherry-picking the Wikipedia guidelines.) others (specially those who don't agree with your cherry-picking from with-in the academic sources and propaganda) and create anti-Pakistan, anti-ISI, anti-Muslim and anti-Islam pages. You spend hours upon hours inserting your venom of bias, prejudice and hate into Pakistan, Muslim or Islam-related Wikipedia pages. Indeed, your history of "editing" is littered with bias, prejudice, hatred and hate towards the Pakistanis, Muslims and Islam. I hope I haven't put my foot on your Indian/British/Irish tail. If I have then please feel welcome to call all of your Wikipedia Admins and Check user buddies shouting " "Personal Attack" which you do it too oftenly and quite proudly to others and still get away with it quite cleverly thanks to your Wikipedia Admin and Check user buddies. Thank you. 99.3.86.25 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Mckhan, do not post here again. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
About the AL Qaeda article
please show me where it states there are strong ties. please paste the sentence here.
- You have made the same mistake I did, Lt. Gen. Panag, who is in charge of the operational command in Ladakh, Jammu and Kashmir regions, said, "We also have no records in the past about Al Qaeda operatives found during counter-insurgency operations in the State. He also ruled out Al Qaeda's relations with Lashker-e-Taiba (LeT) and the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM)." Which was my mistake, and no doubt yours, he goes on to say "We are only aware of Al Qaeda's strong relations with JeM and LeT in Pakistan," he maintained. "In Pakistan, Al Qaeda trains and assists LeT, JeM cadres in operations against the government." So as you see, your edit is incorrect. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- no it is not. please read the sentence. it says "Al Qaeda's strong relations with JeM and LeT in Pakistan". the operating words are "in Pakistan". Where as the article says "Kashmiri groups". So it is factually incorrect to equate the two in Pakistan and Kashmiri groups. If the article sentence said "Pakisani groups" then I would agree, but it is talking about Kashmiri groups which is not equivalent as per rules of ref in wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.87.61.59 (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- That makes little to no sense. The general is being quoted, it is fully attributed as his opinion. There are no rules being violated here. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- i dont think you understand the statement. The general suggests that the LeT and JeM in Pakistan have relations with Al Qaeda. But he does not say LeT and JeM in Kashmir have relations. There can be two entirely different organizations with same names in two different places, so this statement cannot be used to support this fact. The article statement is "had no ties with the Kashmir militant groups". ACtually the two words "in Pakistan" after that dont make sense too... hmmm. This sentence is not correct. It needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.54.94.21 (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- If you "correct it" I will revert you per WP:BLP you cannot change what a BLP has said because you do not agree with it. He said there were no ties between Al Qaeda with LeT & Jem in Kasmir, he also said there is a connection between the groups in Pakistan. I am really not getting what you are driving at here, forgive me but I am quite exhausted. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- yes indeed. that is why i am saying that the sentence in the article needs rephrasing as it is not correct. if it is Kashmiri groups, then that is not established. But if it is in Pakistan, it is, so the sentence strong ties with Kashmiri groups is not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.54.94.21 (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Go fix it, I will check it tomorrow. Please look in here to discuss if I find any issues. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- ok i have edited it. the article clearly states "We are only aware of Al Qaeda's strong relations with JeM and LeT in Pakistan". "In Pakistan, Al Qaeda trains and assists LeT, JeM cadres in operations against the government". So this means that the groups operational under the JeM and LeT banner "inside Pakistan" are tied to Al-Qaeda where as the ones in Kashmir are not because "He also ruled out Al Qaeda's relations with Lashker-e-Taiba (LeT) and the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM)." and also because he said "we are only..." which means the kashmir counterpart is not. hope that makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.87.61.59 (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Go fix it, I will check it tomorrow. Please look in here to discuss if I find any issues. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- yes indeed. that is why i am saying that the sentence in the article needs rephrasing as it is not correct. if it is Kashmiri groups, then that is not established. But if it is in Pakistan, it is, so the sentence strong ties with Kashmiri groups is not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.54.94.21 (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- If you "correct it" I will revert you per WP:BLP you cannot change what a BLP has said because you do not agree with it. He said there were no ties between Al Qaeda with LeT & Jem in Kasmir, he also said there is a connection between the groups in Pakistan. I am really not getting what you are driving at here, forgive me but I am quite exhausted. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- i dont think you understand the statement. The general suggests that the LeT and JeM in Pakistan have relations with Al Qaeda. But he does not say LeT and JeM in Kashmir have relations. There can be two entirely different organizations with same names in two different places, so this statement cannot be used to support this fact. The article statement is "had no ties with the Kashmir militant groups". ACtually the two words "in Pakistan" after that dont make sense too... hmmm. This sentence is not correct. It needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.54.94.21 (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- That makes little to no sense. The general is being quoted, it is fully attributed as his opinion. There are no rules being violated here. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- no it is not. please read the sentence. it says "Al Qaeda's strong relations with JeM and LeT in Pakistan". the operating words are "in Pakistan". Where as the article says "Kashmiri groups". So it is factually incorrect to equate the two in Pakistan and Kashmiri groups. If the article sentence said "Pakisani groups" then I would agree, but it is talking about Kashmiri groups which is not equivalent as per rules of ref in wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.87.61.59 (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Srebrenica massacre
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Srebrenica massacre. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Get off my fucking back.. You God-damn little Indian RETARD
Get off my fucking back.. You God-damn little Indian RETARD. Go and bully around someone else. AND you can shove up your SPI up you Indian ASS.