User talk:Doorvery far

Jammu & Kashmir

Hi, I think that you need to re-calculate the statistics entered in the table. I have reverted it for the time being as at first look it seemed to have wrong information. Please feel free to re-insert the table after giving it another look. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not calculate myself, but i copied and trimmed the table from Kashmir#Demographics. I have reinserted it nonetheless, further concerns welcome. Doorvery far (talk) 03:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. One or more of the external links you added in this edit to the page Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. You may wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Matt (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add new external link, it was the same link but moved, see links [1] and [2] - which are moved links. Doorvery far (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've undone my edits. At first glance, you had changed the link but not the text (which is a copy of the URL), so it looked like you were trying to get users to think that it was a different website than what it actually was. Sorry for the confusion. Matt (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the earlier link had article title "Srinagar", so it was easy for me to search the moved article also i need not change link text. Doorvery far (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem i guess please stop using sources which are clearly pov or clearly op-ed i have seen that you have been warned of this before 86.158.179.205 (talk) 09:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this is banned vandal Nangparbat. ignore him Wikireader41 (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wikireader for info, and Escape Orbit for revert. I will keep that in mind, but the ip can demand ref, which i already added. Doorvery far (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir Conflict

Namaskar ! I have reverted your edit on this article removing obama's comments. I had written this section & I feel obama's comments on this conflict are important and need to stay. their is growing interest in the west in general and US in particular about Kashmir conflict and I feel people want and need to know what the position of Barack Obama is on this matter. I also feel we need to collaborate since you have similar interest as mine rather than be reverting each others ontributions. Have a good day --Wikireader41 (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia being encyclopedia should not bias more about current or latest events. So I removed, also US/UK have not taken any step over Kashmir other than some random talk, so I had removed. But the "Recent developments" section needs to be trimmed down. Doorvery far (talk) 07:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obamas intentions were blocked by a now very powerful Indian American lobby. I think he has got the message now. I will work on the recent developments and try to improve it. I agree that there should be no bias towards more recent events. however I feel the history is relatively well represented in this article.--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Laden autorickshaw

Wikipedia:Verifiability

Autorickshaw laden with stones meant for distribution was siezed by the police in March 2009.Your link to Tribune India does not state that it was linked to Nawhatta killing..
Separatists and workers of a political party were believed to be behind stone pelting incidents which led to retaliatory fire by the police. The reference provided by you doesn't point out to that anywhere.

Kashmirspeaks 20:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashmirspeaks (talk • contribs)

I have fixed as you suggested. I had linked to Nawhatta killing because 1 proximity of date, 2 Damage to police vehicle and possibility of lynching. Doorvery far (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have qouted 2 references one frome Tribune that is ok. But The reference to which leads to retaliatory fire by the police. is this [3]which does not contain what u have qouted rather contains a contadictory statement. It says "Oft times, crowds are known to have used violent means like stone-pelting as a preemptive measure to check the security forces from going on a smashing rampage in their localities during protest demonstrations. And it is known to have worked. It bears repeating that the top leadership in the pro-freedom camp, including Mirwaiz Umer Farooq and Syed Ali Shah Geelani, has repeatedly advised and appealed against stone-pelting and other forms of crowd violence."Kashmirspeaks 12:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashmirspeaks (talk • contribs)

There are thousand refs in net for stone pelting problem there. Only "likely to be challenged" sentences to be given inline citations - not every sentence needs a ref in wiki. Hope this clarifies. They advise crowds, but supply stones, you know what politicians actually are. Doorvery far (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of people died from swine flu in india

Why did you create List of people died from swine flu in india as a redirect? The article it's redirected to will not contain a list of names, so the redirect is inappropriate. Besides which, the title is ungrammatical and improperly capitalized. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the concern, but the target article contains list of names of first few victims. Doorvery far (talk) 06:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't, and if they show up there, I will remove them. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly removing requests for sources is vandalism. Supply the sources, don't remove the tags. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dePRODing of articles

Hello Doorvery far, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD templates you added to a number of articles were removed:

PROD removed from 2004 Indian general election analysis, by User:DGG, with summary '(better solution, since there's a good source for the tables)'
PROD removed from 2009 Indian general election analysis, by User:DGG, with summary '(better solution, since there's a good source for the tables)'

Please consider discussing your concerns with the relevant users before pursuing deletion further. If you still think the articles should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may send them to WP:AfD for community discussion. Thank you - SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Naming of Wikipedia Med articles

Here is the guidelines for medicine [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir Conflict

Hi, This is regarding your last revert, I didnt understand your comment "undo, context here is dispute between Pak and India" also can u provide any reference for this Kashmiri Shia support India. They oppose Pak, I am not concerned. But I still appreciate your unbiased edits. Oniongas (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all thanks for the compliments, being unbiased avoids many conflicts for me and thus saves my time :) Here is a ref "Despite being firmly behind India...", "Kargilis were anti-Pakistan" , likely that you are unaware of plight of shias in Pak. I still stopped short of mentioning shia support for India, but just put the fact that Kargil is mostly shia, unlike Kashmir and Poonch. Doorvery far (talk) 03:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on India. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Abecedare (talk) 06:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion nominations

When you nominate article or files for deletion you should ensure that you inform the originial creator/uploader of the nomination. You can use the code provided in the deletion tag for this purpose. By the way, I am not declining the speedy nominations even though your tags are misplaced, since it would be better if another admin independently told you so. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, I have notified the author. But I find your behavior of reverting[5] without reasoning as unacceptable, seem to hinge to game the system in the edge of policies. If you are unaware, law goes more by spirit, more than by letter. I pity your confidence that another admin will tell me what you think in your mind. Doorvery far (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rules Lawyer

I reverted your merger, as discussion on the talk page of Rules lawyer did not favor a merge. Protonk (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had not gone through the talk page. Cheers! Doorvery far (talk) 06:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

I have undone your merger of Feroz (disambiguation) into Feroze since the merger was opposed by User:JHunterJ at Talk:Feroze, which seems to have been overlooked. Please address the issue raised, and establish consensus before implementing the merger. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome...

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

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username 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 ask your question there. Again, welcome! Priyanath ^talk 16:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx! Doorvery far (talk) 04:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False image license

I have deleted the file File:Borivali park stone.jpg that you uploaded since it was licensed under a non-commercial use, non-derivative license which is not compatible with wikipedias free licensing requirements and is different from cc-by license, which you had tagged it as. In future, please be sure that you read and follow wikipedia's Image use policies and tag any imagages you upload correctly. Abecedare (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since wikipedia is non-commercial I have uploaded, and I have mentioned about no derivative work. But now i just gone through the wikipedia policy. I could even write fair use rationale, but image is not so much necessary here, so thanks for the delete. Doorvery far (talk) 04:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template help

I noticed that you created Template:Somalia. I cant change the state so it will autocollapse in articles(it rather troublesome). I was hoping you might have some insight. Cheers! Outback the koala (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You had missed "d" in autocollapsed. Fixed! Doorvery far (talk) 06:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can collapse the template in individual articles by adding "{{Somalia|state = collapse}}" Doorvery far (talk) 03:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Doorvery far for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Deepak D'Souza (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Mumbai. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs)

Doorvery far, how r u? he has posted this message on my talk page too. don't bother him. --Onef9day (talk) 11:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Onef9day, don't worry that is clear case of provoking by him, just ignore. I think he calls it personal attack because i called him childish. I told that because he may improve his behavior. Doorvery far (talk) 06:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested semi-protection for the Subhas Chandra Bose article

See talk page: Talk:Subhas_Chandra_Bose#Haphazard editing and Protection 72.225.203.17 (talk) 08:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your merge of Bigamy

I do not understand why you thought this article was "completely unsourced." I am under the impression that section 57 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (or at least printed copies of it) is a source. James500 (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Former island

The article Former island has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Permanent dicdef at best

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. shoy (reactions) 16:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MS Antivirus listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MS Antivirus. Since you had some involvement with the MS Antivirus redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ISD codes listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ISD codes. Since you had some involvement with the ISD codes redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. KMF (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Former island" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Former island. Since you had some involvement with the Former island redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Boneless meat

The article Boneless meat has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:N, plus lack of WP:RS; all but one source is a blog post

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Rules as Written" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Rules as Written 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/2023 August 9 § Rules as Written until a consensus is reached. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Rules as Intended" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Rules as Intended 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/2023 August 9 § Rules as Intended until a consensus is reached. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]