User talk:Skoosh

Welcome!

Hello, Skoosh, and

to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• 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

]

You helped choose {{subst:IDRIVEtopic article}} as this week's

WP:ACID

winner

Thank you for your support of the status . Hope you can help.

Spanish translation of the week

Skoosh, the problem is that Elyaqim, who's been adding the Urdu, says he doesn't know Devanagari, and doesn't want to add Devanagari. Not only that, he ONLY wants to supply Urdu for people with names that he recognizes as Urdu-Persian-Arabic forms. BernardM, who's been adding the Devanagari, doesn't know Urdu. Elyaqim says that it's preposterous to expect him with work with BernardM to make sure that both forms are always present. Elyaqim is pissed at me and thinks I'm acting like a dictator. YOU go to

and propose the two-version solution. See how far you get. I've been saying "Both or neither" and getting nowhere.

If I knew Hindi and Urdu and both scripts, I'd just DO IT MYSELF and there wouldn't be any problem. Zora 05:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support of the status . Hope you can help.

I understand your concern regarding our translation method at Wikipedia:Spanish Translation of the Week. I have proposed a solution here. Please leave comments so we can create a viable solution. — J3ff 01:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the disambig page on

]

You have voted for

]

Spanish Translation of the Week

Not an expert on transliteration. That's how I've seen it in some sources, but I don't mind if you change it. --Briangotts (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sukh has been at an edit war for quite some time now. He just won't quit. I tried to reach an agreement but he is persistent in his ridiculous claims. Much dialogue has been done. Sukh is just out there to spread his pro-Sikh anti-hindu, anti-muslim biases throughout wikipedia. Apologize for the bother but Sukh insists on bugging everyone.-------Happytime

I have a feeling that this user is going to be a pain. Some of his edits bear the hallmarks of previous edits by thetruth and has in the past refused to create any sort of dialogue. Please continue removing his ridiculous edits. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i agree with you .Happytime wrote me message in his urdu but i couldnt understand it.i just gusssed what he meant.If he does not know urdu , he has little right to edit that page -unless he has knowledge about it.ask kme if you need my help. i'll also keep an eye on that page .الثاقب (WiseSabre| talk) 21:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems entirely counterproductive to pre-emptively delete a cleanup tag on the assumption that someone will later accidentally delete it. I have re-added it to the talk page, for lack of anywhere else to put it, but it should be moved to the article page for better visibility. I have no wish to participate in the dispute over this article; I was just tidying Category:Wikipedia_cleanup. -- Beland 01:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to offend you or involve you in the dispute; I just wanted to let you know in case you wondered later where the cleanup tag went. I'll try to remember to add it back to the article page on my next edit. --skoosh (háblame) 02:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've had a little luck getting people to work together on the Urdu article. I assume StephenCox is a Harprit sockpuppet, and maybe JusticeLaw is too, but JusticeLaw did attempt to integrate the two versions rather than simply revert as he had been doing up till then. You then copy edited, and then Zora made a major revision rather than simply revert as he had been doing before, and at least he's willing to discuss things on the talk page. Even though JC's and Zora's revisions brought the article nearly into alignment with the old version that each prefers, so they were hardly unbiased, at least they made some accommodation. (StephenCox is still a pest, but maybe that will pass.) Anyway, I'm hoping that if people make reasonable edits, a bit at a time, and justify what they've done on the talk page - or perhaps lay out what they see as wrong with one version or the other point by point for debate - that we may eventually come to an acceptable compromise. For example, JC made the comment to me (though unfortunately not on the Urdu talk page) that he objected to the Urdu article being a comparison with Hindi, I brought that up, and Zora agreed it was a reasonable objection. Anyway, any help you could give in making rational and well supported edits to the article or arguments/dialogue to the talk page would be appreciated. And if your stuff gets deleted by someone less careful, maybe it could be added to both versions as each comes up? kwami 06:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zora is a she. A fifty-eight year old mom with grey hair and a cane. I just display a masculine style of argument <g>. Zora 07:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise it'd be Zoro? Sorry, didn't mean to imply that your argumentation was masculine or anything else. I've just given up trying to be gender neutral when my language refuses to cooperate! kwami 07:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have ben blocked for 24 hours for violating

]

perso-arabic

a million thanks! but then we cant say it's Urdu? because I guess the owner of the shop is Pakistan. so i should say it is written in Urdu or Arabic? --K.C. Tang 01:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so much from you! so they transliterate "chicken" and "shop", that's curious! Thanks again. :D --K.C. Tang 02:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I see you've been involved in the revert wars at Hindi, Urdu and Hindustani. I believe there is must more to these changes than initially meets the eye and I would appreciate it if you could add evidence against this user at User:Sukh/Revert_War_Evidence. I'm compiling this for a RFC. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some info on what appears to be a new sockpuppet at User:Sukh/Revert_War_Evidence. Hope you don't mind. --skoosh (háblame) 15:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great that's fine! If you wish to add more users/ips you're more than welcome. Hopefully I can get this sorted out for a RFC and highlight the issues in question. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 17:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contribution at 29 October 2005 New Delhi bombings . - P R A D E E P Somani (talk) Feel free to send me e-mail.

Howdy, Skoosh.

The same folks who didn't like the books critical of Islam are now trying to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamofascism (term) which has over 500 Kilogoogles (in various forms). Perhaps you could take a look and give your input. Klonimus 00:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I changed the Algiers accord site to redirect to Algiers Agreement (1975) which is a longer and hopefully more detailed article mainly because more people refer to it as agreement and when called the algiers agreement it can be coupled with the year 2000 Eriteria ethiopia treaty. Any objections ? --Karimi 22:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your user signature is coming up with some very odd characters - suggest you try something like
Skoosh | Talk
If that's what you're after. - p.s. the TALK will be bold/not clickable on this page as it's a self-referring link, it will work on other pages.

]

An editor has nominated

]

An editor has nominated Sukhdev Singh Babbar, an article on which you have worked/edited, for deletion. I have recently added several world known NPOV references into this article and also at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sukhdev_Singh_Babbar . Kindly read the current version of this Notability and please vote at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sukhdev_Singh_Babbar if you beleive/find that provided references prove notability of this historic personality.Singh6 (talk) 07:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please give your vote at

is a unbiased organization.

Please remember that huge number of crimes committed by Indian security forces in Punjab will go un-referenced on wikipedia if www.ihro.in is declared POV site. Reason this is among extremely few unbiased sources available online. Eventhough some of the north-Indian newspapers always published govt crimes in Punjab, but unfortunately they do not have this old data archived. For example, The Tribune (a 125 year old newspaper group), one of north-Indian newspapers does not have any online editions prior to year 2001 and Ajit, a regional newspaper of India etc did not have any online editions untill very recently. Also, India’s National magazine, Frontline does not have archive records prior to 1997.

Please read "Amnesty International", "Amnesty International, "Human Rights watch" where it says that "Thousands of mothers await their sons even though some may know that that the oppressor has not spared their sons’ lives on this earth. A mother’s heart is such that even if she sees her son’s dead body, she does not accept that her son has left her. And those mothers who have not even seen their children’s dead bodies, they were asking us: at least find out, is our son alive or not?" and "ENSAAF". As per HRW, Indian security forces arbitrarily detained, tortured, executed, and “disappeared” tens of thousands of Sikhs in counterinsurgency operations. Please remember, Amnesty International was not allowed to enter Punjab during these troubled times, hence Amnesty can not provide records of most of the crimes committed by Indian security forces as an India based Organization IHRO.

So please vote at

]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited María Esteve, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Bowers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorority Life (online game) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The 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 in the 2019 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply ]

2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The 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 in the 2020 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply ]

2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The 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 in the 2021 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply ]

Hello, Skoosh

Thank you for creating Presidential elections in Colombia.

, had the following comments:

This article has been reviewed.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Pyrrho the Skipper}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

The article

reliable source

that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see

]

Sources added (from the original article on the French-language Wikipedia). I will leave it to someone else to remove the tag.

skoosh (háblame) 22:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kat Abughazaleh draft

If you're certain enough that it can pass AfD - you can always move it into the article space yourself. The AfC process is really best for newer editors and those making their first articles (and also if you're improving a draft that was previously declined). I know you've been on WP since 2005, but I don't know if this is your first article. wizzito | say hello! 22:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's not my first article, but in the last few years, I've noticed that some editors have a habit of immediately nominating new articles for deletion, sometimes less than an hour after I'd created them. So I decided to try making a draft first. This time, someone else stepped in less than an hour later after I created that stub to write most of the rest of the article draft.

"Katherine Abughazaleh" was deleted at some point in the past, so it seemed extra important to be cautious and get this article's ducks in a row before putting it out there officially. I might make the move sometime tomorrow (6-24 hours). skoosh (háblame) 06:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]