User talk:AnwarA

Hi, first of all welcome to Wikipedia. Here's the standard welcome message that should help you get started here:

Welcome!

Hello, AnwarA, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Lost 04:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Now on to my second comment: if you want to make a point, its best to make it under your own name. Modifying what other users are trying to say is not the best way to do it. This is specifically related to your edits on the Talk:Hindi page. Please let me know if any help required from my side.-- Lost 04:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to Talk:Hindi

Hi, thanks for your message on my talk page. I am a bit confused. The original message was written by user:Czkwcm and you had made edits to that message. That was the purpose of my message to you. Was that you logging in with another username? -- Lost 06:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well that explains it. Thanks for clarifying... Looking forward to your useful edits... -- Lost 08:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Khalistan

Hi Anwar, please do have a look at the following policy of wikipedia: WP:3RR. Please let me know if anything is unclear. I will be glad to be of help. -- Lost 18:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to maintain WP:NPOV. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance -- Lost 19:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Sorry I read your reply after I reverted it back to it's original state. Leave it as it is for day or so. Let intiate a big debate involving the WHOLE WIKEPEDIA Community. I cannot accept cited sources being edited out. As a academic this is absolutely unacceptable. Wikipedia is here to provide neutral and unbiased information. I've spent 25 years working as a physicist and academically you cannot removed cited third party sources- it is completely unethical. If you feel strongly against a cited sources produce your own cited (neutral third party sources) to challenge them and then the viewer can come to their own conclusion.

Faithfully your - Thomas

Re

Look I appreciate your concern but this is not the way to do it. Very soon the Whole wikipedia community is going to be involved in this article so it can't be biased one way or the other (for either side). You cannot remove cited third party sources. At wikipedia you are not a Indian you belong to the nation of wikipedians, everything you write you must allow for it to be challenged. - Thomas

Re

Look anwar, if you want to introduce evidence about what the other side did (cited third party sources), then do it I will support you. You cannot remove cited third party sources.

Re

Look anwar, regarding cited third party sources, if there is a question mark of the neutrality of the source it will go for debate and vote. However, you can't cited third party sources before that. Look use cited third party sources- I will support you.

Re

Look if your loyality is to the truth and Wikipedia first (not any country, group or anything else) and it's principles I will support you to the ends of the earth. - Thomas

Re

Hi Anwar, first point is can't let you remove cited third party sources. With regards to the Christian monitor third party source it's ok for you to move it down the article. As I do agree it should be MOVED (NOT Changed) further down the article and should not be in the first paragraph. First paragraph should always be introduction. Any sources you wish add MUST be third party cited sources. - Thomas

Re

With regards to factual statistical data it can't be removed. However, in academia you have the principle of rebuff, where you counter the argument with you own third party sources or third party factual statistical data. PS- i will learn how to use the signature thing you mentioned- :-)

Re

Yes and you've deleted whole load of other information. I will put back everything and MOVE the AGREED section that we discussed to the blue star section.

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Nearly Headless Nick 11:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Anwar: Looking at the page history of Khalistan, I can understand that there are lots of disagreements. Here's yet another official policy of wikipedia that I point you towards Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. I hope I am not inundating you with policies :) I have copied this from our friend Qiuip's page -- Lost 12:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on July 1 2006 (UTC) to Khalistan

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 12 hours.

Please stop the mindless reverting and discuss on the talk page

William M. Connolley 12:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you

Hey AnwarA, thanks for the reward, much appreciated, I actually came here to tell you about your mistake because it said you were giving the award to Lostintherush, but in the end you changed it to my username so no complaints. :D. Keep up the good work yourself, although being blocked isn't a good thing, I suggest you try and talk to people on their talk pages, if they do not respond or discuss, you can revert citing the fact that they were POV-Pushing and are not willing to discuss. But first you must at least TRY to discuss outside edit summaries. Also see WP:INWNB to get info on India-related topics. Happy wikiing. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply to comments on my talk page

Hi Anwar, I am sorry that I could not reply earlier. I was busy editing another article and also in the real world. First of all, I am very relieved to see that you are back on wikipedia despite a block and didnt take it to heart.

I have read the Khalistan article myself quite some time back and also read the lengthy discussions on the talk page. I took a conscious decision to stay away from not only this but a few other contentious articles where I thought I would be adding too much of my own POV as I do have some strong opinions but little factual knowledge of the subject.

To see you and Thomas gave me lots of hope that two neutral parties may bring the article to a nice NPOV version. It was unfortunate that both of you got blocked for an article which you had good intentions for.

I do believe that your edits were in good faith and also that our friend Thomas was trying to maintain the citations as a neutral third party.

In a ligher vain, while recalling the debate, it did strike me as interesting that here we were, belonging to three different religions, hotly debating a topic which may be closer to a fourth religion!!

Please let me know if I can be of help on anything. I will try my best to help. -- Lost 17:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry. I have no intention of staying away from contentious articles if I have knowledge on the subject. Especially if I see blatant vandalism on such articles, I revert it very quickly. If it's POV, I usually take my time and try to be more thorough before jumping in. After all, as one of my good friends says - We are here to make Wikipedia:Better than the Best -- Lost 18:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there my friend. I see you have made some contributions to the above topic and its talk page today. Hope you saw my inputs on the talk page as well. I have mentioned that I would not like to give any further inputs on that page but in case you would like me to do some research through google on neutral sources, I will definitely offer my services. I would like to see the article more neutrally written including both the Indian side's as well as the other side's arguments. Hope u can make it neutral -- Lost 16:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:My edits to the Khalistan article

Your edits might not have been actually vandalism, but they were in the violation of the three revert rule on Wikipedia. Constant edit-warring is not considered to be good for the project. --Nearly Headless Nick 12:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi again friend. The best way to move ahead here is to gain consensus on your views. You may like to see this and comment. Infact the noticeboard is a great place to seek attention from fellow interested editors. Of course, there would also be neutral people elsewhere on wikipedia who would also try to make the article better. I will try to find such places and post them here for you. All the best -- Lost 05:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I deeply appreciate the way that you have taken up the subject. Its always good to get a consensus before making a big change in any article. However, you can be bold if you like. Wikipedia has a three revert rule which you violated on the article. In case, some other user reverts to version which other users do not agree to, you can derieve consesus about the subject on the talk page of the article. Keep the rules in mind and be flexible, that'll do the trick. Warm regards, --Nearly Headless Nick 13:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss

Please discuss on Punjab talk page before removing content. The militancy having begun earlier is already covered in the article. Situation detirorated further does not explain how, or what became worse. Haphar 15:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a separate article on Khalistan and that has enough discussion on the subject. The fact remains that the armed struggle began much earlier ... the extent of fortification in the Golden Temple and the events that led to the operation go a long way in proving that. AnwarA 16:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the section, in particular the Para on Khalistan need only present a high level summary since there is already a (rather controversial) article on Khalistan already. :-) AnwarA 16:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The army was not called and deputed in all ofPunjab, Riberio did not have to be hauled to Punjab to take care of the issue, and people did not stop coming out of their houses after sunset due to fear of terrorist attacks. All of this and more happened after 1984. Khalistan may be related, but this is an article on Indian Punjab and is to cover a period that impacted it in the 50 years of Indpendent India, Indian Punjab had a conflict for a decade or one fifth of it's existence. The conflict needs more details than a high level summary. no one is saying there was no militancy or conflict before. What is being said is that the conflict "increased" after the attack. That is hardly the same as writing a whole article on Khalistan. And there is nothing controversial or POV about an increase in the intensity of a conflict. It is a couple of lines that are being discussed here, not a whole page, so a couple of lines addition do not take "away" from an article, whereas removing them does.

Indira Gandhi's assasination, the anti sikh progom all took place after 1984 and created a new level in the militancy. You want to add that militancy/armed struggle existed before please go ahead and do so but do not go about deleting stuff. Haphar 08:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Haphar 08:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 08:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Anwar, nice to see you logging in. Happy Prakash Utsav to you -- Lost^(talk) 04:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you Sir, and the same to you.

Haphar 19:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)