User talk:Qiuip

First of all:

Welcome!

Hello, Qiuip, 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:

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 17:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, you are in danger of violating the WP:3RR policy of wikipedia on the Khalistan page. Please discuss your changes on the talk page instead of just reverting. Wikipedia works on consensus. Please let me know on my talk page if I can be of any help (I am not an administrator). -- Lost 17:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Khalistan

Dear friend, I laud your efforts to preserve the sanctity of wikipedia. However, I would like to point you to a favorite policy of mine: Assume Good Faith towards other editors while editing articles and try to sort out differences on the talk page of the articles. Please let me know if anything is unclear. -- Lost 19:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thomas! Thank you for your message on my talk page. I sincerely appreciate your efforts to uphold the neutrality policy of wikipedia. I wish to assure you that that is my interest too. I assure you that I will gradually work to improve this article with reliable citations. In its present form, the article is grossly misleading for a person who does not already have enough understanding of the subject, even if it may contain sporadic statements of truth. I have to rush now but will write to you soon with my concerns on the article. But for now please read my comments on the Khalistan talk page...and assume good faith.

Have a nice day. AnwarA 02:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thomas! The fact that I am an Indian has very little to do with my edits on the article. Having spent more than three decades in Punjab I do not have to count on any "source" to know the truth. Yet, I belong to a community which was perhaps the least affected during the crisis. Thus I am perfectly neutral. As for the academic sources, I sincerly believe that merely quoting a source for an article this sensitive does not help. The article has to present a holistic picture. Besides, you cannot deny the fact that during the eightees, the western media was particularly biased against the Indian establishment. I am only removing statements that I believe aid in a blatant misrepresentation of facts, especially when I do not find mention of things like the pulling out of innocent civials from buses and shooting them dead in cold blood by terrorists in Punjab. The whole Punjab knows of the incident in Lalru where 32 persons from a single community were pulled out of a bus and shot dead. I also do not find any mention of the sacrilege committed by these same terrorists in the Golden Temple when they were holed up by the security forces just before operation black thunder. No body seems to talk about that either. AnwarA 10:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thomas, I will certainly introduce evidence as I work my way through the article. The whole article needs to be rewritten and I wish to make significant contribution to this article. Afterall, truth must be upheld. All I am saying I am only removing statements for now if they qualify on any of the following criteria:

1. They present only partial truth and thereby unfairly project one of the sides in a bad light.

2. The statements that have no relevance to article at all.

The most recent removals if you see qualify both these criteria. And as I said, there is a lot to be said in this article and it will take time. Assume good faith, Soon we will have an article that is unbiased, neutral and does not un-necessarily hurt sentiments by projecting any side in bad light. Many thanks ! AnwarA 10:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My loyalty is to Truth and Truth alone. Not to any community, nor any country...and as I have already stated I do not belong to any of the affected communities so I have all the more reason to be absolutely neutral on this. I have vehemently opposed bias and fundamentalism on wikipedia and have been anonymously reverted vandalism on pages like Hinduism, Islam, India, Pakistan and so on. I am sure you we will find a way to work together on this. Afterall, I am sure we both stand for truth. But once again, my request is that let us atleast try to keep the unbiased for now. The article will soon take shape. Besides, notice that the paragraph that I have removed from the lead in section does not add any value to the article...does it? Thanks ! and on a lighter note, please sign in your name with four tilde (~) signs. It is easier to respond to your messages then. :-)AnwarA 11:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well juse use four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date like this - AnwarA 11:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the stuff deleted qualified the same two criteria. 61.17.159.159 11:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello Thomas (Qiuip): 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 will also be copying this message on our friend Anwar's talk page -- Lost 12:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: You may also want to see this -- Lost 12:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:your comment on my talk page: OK, how about if we propose to him that he can make well intentioned edits without removing the cites. Later, if and when, he gets a better source, he can cite from that and remove the current ones. What is currently happening with all the reverts is that even other (non cite related) info is getting reverted -- Lost 12:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 hours.

Please stop the mindless reverting and discuss on the talk page

William M. Connolley 12:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]