User talk: Kashmiri
This is Kashmiri's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 90 days ![]() |
![]() | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
![]() | This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. |
![]() | Committed identity: d254dc376a14af85ca560f32cbf255f9c1ba332a7b9e6832caaad7810fefbad08dda6b6388507ec13fa76206016ff036025e880edffdf2f40f39b3a3d29fc4cd is a SHA-512 commitment to this user's real-life identity.
|
![]() | This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:
|
![]() | Please don't template me! Everybody makes mistakes, and this user finds user warning templates impersonal and disrespectful. If there's something you'd like to say, please take a moment to write a comment below in your own words. |
"ThinkFree Office" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect ThinkFree Office has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 9 § ThinkFree Office until a consensus is reached. Juanma281984 (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
The Arbitration case to which you were a party, "Conflict of interest management", has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- The Arbitration Committee requests that a new VRT queue be established to accept reports of undisclosed conflict-of-interest or paid editing, where reporting such editing on-wiki is in conflict with WP:OUTING. The queue membership is to be decided by the Arbitration Committee and is open to any functionary and to any administrator by request to the Committee and who passes a functionary-like appointment process (including signing the ANPDP). Following the creation of the queue, the existing checkuser-only paid-en-wp queue will be archived, and access will be restricted to checkusers indefinitely. Functionaries and administrators working this queue may, at their discretion, refer a ticket to the Arbitration Committee for review; an example of a situation where a ticket should be referred to the committee is when there is a credible report involving an administrator.
- For posting non-public information about another editor—after a previous post by Fram in the same thread was removed and oversighted—Fram is admonished against posting previously undisclosed information about other editors on Wikipedia ("outing") which is a violation of the harassment policy. Concerns about policy violations based on private evidence must be sent to the appropriate off-wiki venue. Any further violations of this policy may result in an Arbitration Committee block or ban.
- For his failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, specifically as pertains to conflict of interest editing and conflict of interest disclosure, Nihonjoe's administrator and bureaucrat user rights are removed. Nihonjoe may regain these user rights via a successful request for adminship and a successful request for bureaucratship, respectively.
For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 17:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- 12:47, 24 April 2024 (partial revert of this)
- 11:35, 24 April 2024 (revert of this)
Please self-revert 12:47. BilledMammal (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think you're stretching the interpretation of 1RR beyond its intended meaning and purpose. If your argument was followed, ANY deletion, even of a single character, made anywhere on the page should count as a revert, since technically every character has been added by someone sometime. This would limit editing the page to adding new material only beyond the first deletion, which would make meaningful work on articles virtually impossible. That's certainly not what was intended by the 1RR rule, whose aim is to prevent edit wars.
- I'll revert now for formality's sake and might take the matter to relevant noticeboards. — kashmīrī TALK 13:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- To address your broader concerns, you may find it useful to know that removing stable content is not considered a revert.
- To address your specific concerns here, I added "yet", you removed it. You undid my action in part, which is considered a revert per WP:3RR. However, if you believe I am misusing the process, you are welcome to open a discussion at WP:AE. Alternatively, you can re-implement your edit, and I can open the discussion at AE. BilledMammal (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- FYI, I see nothing about "stable content" in the policy. — kashmīrī TALK 16:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's not in the policy, but it is always interpreted as being there - I agree that it should be explicitly stated, it's another of our unwritten rules that trip up the uninformed. BilledMammal (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- FYI, I see nothing about "stable content" in the policy. — kashmīrī TALK 16:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Vishnu Sahasranam
Ki Kashmiri,
It seems like you keep editing the Vishnu Sahasranam Page to remove the names that make up the Vishnu Sahasranam. Is there a reason for this vandalism? On a page about the 1000 Names of Vishnu (Vishnu Sahasranam) it does nto make sense for you to keep removing the 1000 Names of Vishnu.
best Akd112358 (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Read the discussion at Talk:Vishnu Sahasranama. And never accuse editors of vandalism. — kashmīrī TALK 17:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Kashmiri,
- I will call it out as it is. You are committing vandalism on the page Akd112358 (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Your raising of the author’s Judaism
Hi Kashmiri, Could you please explain what you meant when you invoked that a source’s author is Jewish at Talk:Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus? Zanahary (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- I responded there, not sure why brought it up here. And no, it was not about religion, I have no means of knowing anyone's beliefs; nor do I care, frankly. I simply hinted to a possible POV issue of the quoted expert. — kashmīrī TALK 19:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- But what POV issue? Are you saying that her being Jewish may present a POV issue? Zanahary (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Is it so strange that a person's background may influence their point of view? Also, it's him I believe. — kashmīrī TALK 23:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- If their background was Israeli, no. However, suggesting that their Judaism influences them in favor of Israel is the antisemitic canard of dual loyalty - I hope you will be more careful around that in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Another one who tries to conflate ethnicity and religion. Can you please read my responses above before commenting? — kashmīrī TALK 11:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t think you understand - regardless of whether you are talking about their Jewish faith or their Jewish ethnicity, suggesting that they are biased because of it in relation to Israel is the antisemitic canard of dual loyalty.
- You’re welcome to argue that Israeli’s are biased without it raising issues of antisemitism, but it’s not appropriate to argue that Jews are. BilledMammal (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've raised it and agree with BilledMammal. Doug Weller talk 13:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Nobody has brought up religion. You yourself raised that the source may be “Jewish”—you didn’t specify whether you were pointing out their possible Jewish faith or their possible Jewish ethnicity.
That an author ought to be trusted less, or may be biased, because they are a Jew, is a plainly antisemitic contention. Zanahary (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Another one who tries to conflate ethnicity and religion. Can you please read my responses above before commenting? — kashmīrī TALK 11:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- If their background was Israeli, no. However, suggesting that their Judaism influences them in favor of Israel is the antisemitic canard of dual loyalty - I hope you will be more careful around that in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Is it so strange that a person's background may influence their point of view? Also, it's him I believe. — kashmīrī TALK 23:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- But what POV issue? Are you saying that her being Jewish may present a POV issue? Zanahary (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Image of Luxemburg Personalausweis
Hi Kashmiri I want to add the image to page in German „Personalausweis (Luxemburg)” which I have created. I can not make it. Could You help me? Jankwi (talk) 07:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Reason that I remove unsourced content
I feel that unsourced content encourages other new editors to also add unsourced content, and inexperienced editors to add something they find on a search which matches a text string in the statement as a source for the statement. I feel that Wikipedia is not the place for mis or dis-information to be published. This is a good relevant essay: WP:BACKWARDS. ---Avatar317(talk) 00:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Proposal to Separate ThinkFree Office from Hancom Office
Hello Kashmiri,
I'd like to discuss the possibility of separating the ThinkFree Office entry from the Hancom Office page. Here are the key points:
- Corporate Independence: ThinkFree Inc. was spun off from Hancom in November 2023 and operates independently. An updated Wikipedia entry would reflect this change accurately. More details can be found in this ZDNet Korea article.
- Product Distinction: ThinkFree Office consists of word processing, spreadsheet, and presentation tools, making it a distinct product from Hancom Office in both composition and offerings.
- Brand Identity: Maintaining a distinct entry for ThinkFree Office would help in preserving its unique brand identity.
I believe your insight would be crucial in ensuring the precision of this update. Could we start a discussion on this to explore the best way forward? Thanks for considering this change. Longtailmonkey (talk) 06:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Longtailmonkey I'm not really sure that ThinkFree Office currently passes our notability threshold for software. It may, if it's the same as Hancom Office, but again, I think the discussion will be best had at Talk:Hancom Office. I'm sorry I can't be of much help. — kashmīrī TALK 01:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:
- Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
- Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
- Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
- Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
- Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
- Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
- Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
- Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed
See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Re-adding content onto userpage
Hi,
Thanks for re-adding my warning onto the IPs talk page! However, I'm pretty sure a filter caught that saying WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME. I got that once. It's not really necessary to add the message back, it just means they've read the message. If they continue to vandalize Wikipedia, they'll get blocked. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 18:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, however that's a dynamic IP address, so it's a shared Talk... — kashmīrī TALK 02:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, still. I checked your edit filter and it didn't catch it. I was just saying. It's fine now. Don't worry about it too much
. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 15:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, still. I checked your edit filter and it didn't catch it. I was just saying. It's fine now. Don't worry about it too much
May 17
How do you make your username coloured when you reply someone? Based Kashmiri (talk) 07:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- See WP:FANCYSIG. — kashmīrī TALK 09:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Based Kashmiri TALK 09:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Based Kashmiri, That's essentially a copy of my signature with very minor modifications. Since your username is similar to mine, could you please make your signature markedly different to avoid confusion or even a suspicion of impresonation (WP:SIGFORGE)? Thanks. — kashmīrī TALK 10:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was unaware of that. I've made changes. Is this one okay?
- And I'd like to clarify that I'm not attempting to impersonate you. While viewing Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/India#India, I saw the article you had nominated for deletion (Muni Mohjit Vijayji) was located just above the article I had nominated for deletion (Maratha–Nizam wars). I got curious when I saw that our usernames are similar. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 11:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Based Kashmiri, That's essentially a copy of my signature with very minor modifications. Since your username is similar to mine, could you please make your signature markedly different to avoid confusion or even a suspicion of impresonation (WP:SIGFORGE)? Thanks. — kashmīrī TALK 10:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Based Kashmiri TALK 09:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm interested in how you found these pages
I am also interested in what brought the pages discussed here to your attention. Your editing history doesn't generally show that you're involved in patrolling Wikipedia space, or anywhere really, for technical CSDs. It certainly does leave the impression that you were following their contributions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish I'm terribly sorry but that's not the kind of discussion I'd like to spend my time on, as it's not helping to build an encyclopaedia, which is what I'm here for. So I'll keep focusing on the latter task if you allow.
- By the way, you've gone through my contributions, correct? — kashmīrī TALK 19:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Well, at it certainly appears that you were watching their edits and hopped in to csd those pages, I was hoping to address this with an informal warning to not do that with someone you're already at loggerheads with. I'm also hoping to avoid a real sanction like an interaction ban.
- Going through their contributions is fine. Everyone does that to everyone else. What isn't fine is opening a gotcha csd with someone you disagree with on content. The battleground in ARBPIA is bad enough without spreading it around.
- I haven't reviewed your own contributions in too much detail, but I did review your csd log, which is why I said it doesn't seem like you're normally patrolling for technical csds. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish On seeing a highly problematic edit, I routinely check that editor's other contributions, and I've been doing this for many years. This was especially useful when dealing with vandals and socks, but also GF edits and administrative mistakes (e.g., recently had to go through edit history of an otherwise prolific editor Onel5969 and undo tens or hundreds of their edits). Yes, given that BM's edits have been quite of a problem on Israel-Palestine web pages, I do keep an eye on their contributions across the project, too. Much like they do with my contributions, popping in after weeks of absence just to undo or report my edits.[1][2] Sorry but I have to put up with it and unlike BM have little patience for noticeboard drama. — kashmīrī TALK 13:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- That's about what I expected. Please try to avoid immediately CSDing pages created by someone you're in conflict with since it's obviously going to raise the temperature. If there are obvious red-line violations you can still address that, but short term test pages to test a user script on-wiki could probably sit for a bit to see if the editor requests deletion on their own. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Well, it's not whether you or me think it's fine or not – and we never know beforehand how many test pages the user or their script will create next, so we need to react. Scripts that rename pages cannot run wild, untested, in a key namespace. It's also about using namespaces for their intended roles. Talk is not forum, and WP is not test. We have a dedicated WP version for testing – test.wikipedia.org. I'm glad to see that BM at least started to use the Draft namespace for testing, just as I advised them, since that's the most permissive of our namespaces. — kashmīrī TALK 13:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oh and I won't "immediately CSDing pages". BM are most welcome to create pages in appropriate namespaces: an article page in mainspace, a template in Template namespace, etc. I promise I won't CSD any article they create in mainspace – assuming of course it's an actual article! — kashmīrī TALK 13:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- That's about what I expected. Please try to avoid immediately CSDing pages created by someone you're in conflict with since it's obviously going to raise the temperature. If there are obvious red-line violations you can still address that, but short term test pages to test a user script on-wiki could probably sit for a bit to see if the editor requests deletion on their own. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish On seeing a highly problematic edit, I routinely check that editor's other contributions, and I've been doing this for many years. This was especially useful when dealing with vandals and socks, but also GF edits and administrative mistakes (e.g., recently had to go through edit history of an otherwise prolific editor Onel5969 and undo tens or hundreds of their edits). Yes, given that BM's edits have been quite of a problem on Israel-Palestine web pages, I do keep an eye on their contributions across the project, too. Much like they do with my contributions, popping in after weeks of absence just to undo or report my edits.[1][2] Sorry but I have to put up with it and unlike BM have little patience for noticeboard drama. — kashmīrī TALK 13:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
May 2024
![Stop icon](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/Stop_hand_nuvola.svg/30px-Stop_hand_nuvola.svg.png)
Your recent editing history at Tamil genocide shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Kashmiri reported by User:Pharaoh of the Wizards (Result: ). Thank you. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Notice of Administrator's noticeboard/incidents discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)