User talk: Kashmiri

This is Kashmiri's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

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.

SHA-512 commitment to this user's real-life identity.

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan the Arab–Israeli conflict pseudoscience and fringe science complementary and alternative medicine He should not be given alerts for those areas.

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.

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
  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—
  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)[reply]

1. 12:47, 24 April 2024 (partial revert of this)
2. 11:35, 24 April 2024 (revert of this)

Please self-revert 12:47. BilledMammal (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:AE. Alternatively, you can re-implement your edit, and I can open the discussion at AE. BilledMammal (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

FYI, I see nothing about "stable content" in the policy. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Read the discussion at Talk:Vishnu Sahasranama. And never accuse editors of vandalism. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

But what POV issue? Are you saying that her being Jewish may present a POV issue? Zanahary (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]