User talk:Anonymous editor/archive1

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Hi edit

Hi , whatsup with this name Farhansher 20:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanx for your reply . Just wondering ,did U come here on somebody's invitation on some internet forum ?? I am asking b/c I had asked some people on some forums to come here . So wanted to know if U were one of them . Enjoy your stay at WP . Peace Farhansher 20:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

your edit summaries edit

ae, while your edits themselves are fair enough, your comments are needlessly aggressive. You can dispute certain allegations, but you cannot dispute the existence of the dispute. Normally, it should be enough to refuse to have weasly terms in the article and ask for credible sources. "who the heck cares" is not an argument, if there are notable sources, they will be included. dab (ᛏ) 10:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, although I should point out that, in such a case, sometimes agression is the only tool to counter itself. I agree that if there is a reliable source it should be included, but there is none to support urchid's claims this article. The only source stating that is based on a completely unreliable interview, as stated before. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 19:34, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Aggression causes inflamitorry edits, and will damage your credibility. Please refrain for the sake of keeping the peace.--Tznkai 19:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 19:11, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Links edit

Hi , a big problem is that if we start adding Islamic sites here , people wil include shia , salfi & even Qadyani sites. Then U know , very soon faithfreedom , jihad watch will come into Islam page , saying we need to make this article NPOV . So watchout for that happening . Hope U would understand .Farhansher 16:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In response: Yes, I underestand completely, but I still believe that we should provide viewers with an appropriate list of general links that educate them about the religion. This is integral to clarify the tenets of the religion. Very few users will actaully use directory for general info about the religion. Critical links are given in the directory and I clearly restate that a religion does not need POV in the first place because it is factuality rather than an issue. The links I listed are factual and I ofcourse did not link them for POV, but for factuality. But, yes, I do understand what you were saying, thanks for informing me. --Anonymous editor 19:11, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Send me a mail when U R free at sherfarhan@gmail.com. Btw can I ask where R u from & what was ur previous religion ?? Thanx

Saudi Arabia edit

You have violated the three-revert rule (3RR) and have been blocked temporarily from editing. If you feel this block is unfair, please e-mail me using the link on my user page, and I'll get straight back to you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:16, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Query edit

Anon, I'm wondering what your reasoning is for deleting this material [1] from Saudi Arabia? The incident did occur, and to remove it seems odd and inflammatory. Any clarification would be appreciated. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:18, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

It is unsourced material. It needs to be sourced before inserted into an encyclopedia. Surely, noone can make up stories and insert them into an article. Btw, I am whose sockpuppet, SlimVirgin? The only reason I was using anon IP currently is because I am on a 3rr violation and was being made personal attacks against by a user who has used several sockpuppets. Who would you suspect me to be a sockpuppet for? :)-- Anonymous editor

You're not meant to be posting as you're blocked for 3RR. It's not a made-up story, and you surely know that, because it's a notorious incident. While I support your desire for references, you didn't ask for a reference, you just deleted it. Are you actually disputing its accuracy? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:41, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

If you look in the edit history of that article I did indeed ask for a source and I have never heard of the incedent as actual fact. So please cite the source/reference if you are confident story is real.

Secondly, I am not going to stand silent and not post when there are personal attacks made on me. If those vandal/users are not stopped then why should I? The same person (enviroknot and his anon IPs) who has made personal attacks against me has already brought his profanity to your talk page, so realize that. And can you please answer my question about who you claim I am a sockpuppet of? Thank you and hope to hear from you soon. -- Anonymous editor

I'm surprised you haven't heard of the schoolgirls killed in the burning school. Their school caught fire, and the religious police wouldn't allow them to escape because they weren't wearing headscarves and black robes. Fifteen girls died and around 50 were seriously injured. There are hundreds of thousands of stories about it online e.g. [2]. In future, if an editor makes reference to something you've never heard of, ask for a source on the talk page, but don't delete it, though you're entitled to delete it if no source is forthcoming, or better still, you could look for a source yourself. As for the sockpuppetry, I won't mention the name because I have no evidence, but if evidence emerges, I'll let you know. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:24, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I did indeed ask for a source if you look in the edit history of the article. See now you referenced the object and I have no problems with including it. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 00:35, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

comments edit

Hi, I would like to point out a few things on the Islam talk page. While user 4.158 was probably going too far in his comment at the top of the section "The Truth About Islam", I don't think it deserved the bashing it got by you. It wasn't really right for user 4.158 to use the words "scum", "foul" and various others, but I have to say that it wasn't much better when you started that shouting. I would like to point out that Christians and Muslims do NOT worship the same God. Perhaps Islam and Christianity share a few similarities, but Allah is not as loving as our God. He requires that people's good deeds outweigh their bad ones, which is impossible since even one sin can keep you out of Heaven. Well, I won't drawl on, and I hope this doesn't create any hard feelings between us. Regards. Scorpionman 18:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The very fact that you deny that muslims and christians worship the same God is indication, with all due respect, that you do not understand Islam. Surely, you can not believe like christianity does that all our sins are forgiven just because Jesus 'died' on the cross. Why would God, the one and only, put us into this world if he did not want us to prove ourselves, to be faithful to him, to serve him. Islam does not state that one sin keeps you out of heaven and you have been misinformed. The very fact that you said your 'good deeds' have to outweigh your sins contradicts this. There are certain beliefs that one needs to get into heaven and there are certain sins that are forgiven. See Islam. Islam is a way for people to live and truly it is the peaceful and pious way to live, I found that out when I learned more about Islam from sources that were not anti-Islamic. Islam is indeed the true word of God, the true message that was passed on to humans by Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Muhammad andŢ the other prophets, peace be upon every one of them.Allah is the most merciful, the most forgiving and truly what you said about one sin is very contrary to this.

Surely according to what you said, in Christianity, you can kill a hundred people and as long as you have faith you will get into heaven. Truly you can not believe that? You have to consider that sin is there for a reason. Also you should realize that unlike christianity, Islam says there are other good people of the other abrahamic faiths (christianity and judaism) that will also be able to enter heaven. Doesn't that show God's true love towards all his people? The christian version of God states that all who are not christian will not get into heaven. Surely then, who classifies as a christian in your eyes, there are so many different beliefs?

Please realize I understand all of this as I was once an evangelical christian myself. I know many like myself and my wife who have converted to Islam. And I am sorry but I do not have time to go on and explain Islam thoroughly right now but if you wish to learn more I will clarify the beliefs for you. I Similarly,I was not hard on user 4.158, if you check most of his edits, they are primarily Islam bashing and profanity against Islam. A true muslim would never be caught showing this type of intolerance to others and I find it ironic that christians who claim they want to pass on 'love and tolerance' have been the first in line to vandalize Islam-related articles. I hope you understand and I appreciate that you lead me to clarify this for you. Learn about Islam, surely you will understand what I mean. --Anonymous editor 20:00, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

If you read the Islam article, it says that conversion out of Islam is punishable by death. It's not like that with Christianity, and seeing that you DID convert out of it, you weren't punished with death. Also, if you kill a hundred people, God will still forgive you if you are repentant. If you recieve Jesus as your Savior and Lord, you will be able to go to heaven. If Allah is as loving and forgiving as you say he is, why does conversion out of Islam mean you should be punished by death? A Christian who turns to Islam isn't punished that way. As for the many different beliefs, I'd have to say that I don't know quite all of them, but I do know that Catholicism, which is one of the beliefs, says you can buy for yourself and for others passage into heaven. Not possible. But tell me, how do muslims earn their way to heaven? Scorpionman 20:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Christian conversions were also punished by death if you look through history. In fact, not converting to christianity was highly punished by death in early Europe. As society has changed so has this concept and there are christians today who I guarantee will still use the same concept to deal with apostasy.

About Muslim passage into heaven: Allah Almighty forgives pretty much all sins except idol worshiping and trinity beliefs; "Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin most heinous indeed. (The Noble Quran, 4:48)." Therefore, Islam forms the direct relationship between a Muslim and His Creator Allah Almighty as long as a Muslim believes in One True GOD. There is no middle man between a Muslim and His Creator; "It was We Who Created man, and We know what dark suggestions his soul makes to him: for We are nearer to him than (his) jugular vein. (The Noble Quran, 50:16)"

Many times, people fail to realize that the Islamic concept of salvation is not based upon good deeds, but is based primarily upon faith. In the many times Allah Almighty talks in the Quran about salvation, he always states, "Those who believe and do good deeds." Belief is always mentioned before deeds or works. When one converts to Islam, one does not do it by doing some good work but rather through realizing and believing that there is but one God and Muhammed (peace be upon him) is his last messenger. Non-Muslims may perform good works as well, but what sets them apart from Muslims is their lack of IMA’AN (Aqeedah) [faith], or belief. The reason that the good works of the non-believers are worthless in the hereafter is because of their disbelief. Unless a person's imaan or aqeedah is not correct, his deeds are wasteful.

"Strongest among men in enmity to the believers (Muslims) wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, 'We are Christians': because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant." (The Noble Quran, 5:82)"

"Say: 'O People of the Book (i.e., Jews and Christians)! Come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah.' If then they turn back, say ye: 'Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to Allah's Will).' (The Noble Quran, 3:64)"

Furthermore, notice what is says in Luke 10 of the bible: - On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" - "What is written in the Law (testament)?" he replied. "How do you read it?" - He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind' ; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' " - "You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."

Notice that Jesus didn't talk about any trinity concept, nor did he say to the man that he must accept Jesus as a mediator (or son) between him and GOD Almighty to win eternal life. No Jesus was pretty clear and straight forward here: LOVE GOD ALMIGHTY AND LOVE YOUR NEIGHBORS AS YOURSELF. That is simply all there is to it to win eternal life according to Jesus'.

Similarly, in Mark 10:18 one of the many examples that protestants usually deny is found (New Testament!): "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good–except God alone." Surely if Jesus was involved in the trinity, he would not have said this. --Anonymous editor 00:27, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hi guys , just wanted to add , no where in Quran Allah said turning back from Islam is punishable to death , I know its present in Islam page , that has been put there by an Islamphobe . For more U can see Apostasy in Islam.

About other religions Allah says Those with Faith, those who are Jews, and the Christians and Sabaeans, all who have Faith in Allah and the Last Day and act rightly, will have their reward with their Lord. They will feel no fear and will know no sorrow (2:62)

So U dont necessarily have to be a muslim to go to heaven ( well if U R then its even better ). All U have to do is that U have to have faith in One God , DAy of judgement ( and of course afterlife ) & do good deeds to others . Very simple . If U commit a sin , ask for forgiveness sincerely ( dont try to play games with God ), U R forgiven . Btw according to Islamic books Sabaens include non Abrahamic faiths ( unlike what is written on WP ). Farhansher 04:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree absolutely with Farhanser. I don't know why anyone would want to turn back from Islam though. --Anonymous editor 19:19, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Well most of the times its because of lack of knowledge . I never heard of people leaving Islam & accepting Christianity or Judaism , but sometimes people , not having all the answers , tend to become Athiest . I mean its difficult to actually prove God . And when people fail to do so , they tend to think it is better to leave unexplainable things behind . Some people I have talked to ( who said they left Islam ) , told me that they werent able to wear Hijab , or werent able to offer Prayers , or werent able to leave Alcohol , so they first accepted & then left Islam . But if U ask them if they believe in One God , they say yes . If U ask them If they believe in Muhammad as the last prophet , they say yes . So technically they R still inside Islam , though they dont know . There is a possibility of people leaving Islam when /if they R opressed by other muslims , ( well like the fabricated story of Enviroknot , though it turned out to be a good joke when the self proclaimed born Saudi muslim women wasent able to translate on sentence of Arabic ) . But this is again out of hatred to the oppressers , & not b/c of any defect in Islamic teachings .

Btw I need your e-mail address , wanna talk about stuff on WP . Farhansher 18:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I will email you soon within a couple of days and then we can talk about stuff on WP. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 20:45, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

3rr edit

You wrote the following on Talk:Jihad:

The only reason I was using anon IP before is because I am on a '3rr violation' (by you) and was being made personal attacks against by a user who has used several sockpuppets (I think you know who).

If you edited while being blocked for 3RR violation, you will be blocked for 24 hours again. Please treat the 3RR with utmost seriousness: it was formulated to stop intractable edit wars on contentious pages. Admins will react to any violations of a 3RR block through the use of anonymous editing or the use of sockpuppets with further blocks, and if necessary will take these violations to the arbitration committee. I have noted this on the Jihad talk page, and have also left a message with User:SlimVirgin. You have been warned. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't break the 3RR. There is no need and you will get blocked. If you need a hand, leave a message on my talk page. --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:34, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Irishpunktom for your kindness.

Ta bu shi da yu maybe if you adequately deal with personal attacks/user page vandalisms being made against users by other notorius sockpuppet using ones, perhaps users such as I will not resort to 'violating' the 3rr and instead replying to the personal attacks. Btw, I only used one anon IP, while one of other users who was making personal attacks has used several ANON ips along with several user names. Deal with him justly and I won't violate 3rr. There is no need for double standard. I thank you anyways for your concern. --Anonymous editor 19:13, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hi AE, this is AI. Policy should be followed, not as an excuse for "revenge" against opposing pov contributors. imho, of course.--AI 02:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks AI, but if you witnessed the vandalism, profanity and personal attacks that this user has done you would agree with me. Regardless, this issue has been over long ago. --Anonymous editor 17:13, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Pakistan Talk edit

I'm going to to attempt to get the Pakistan talk page reverted due to the fact that I hastily rushed through trying to archive the massive volume of information on the page. I apologize if this removes your recent post... BTW those are good points on the controversial sections of the artice. Sorry again. Jtkiefer 06:31, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Thanks for informing me, I saved my edits. --Anonymous editor 06:33, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Pakistan protection. edit

While I appreciate that the debate on Pakistan is complex, the fact remains that there was an active edit war. If some objectionable content remains for a little while on the protected version, that's a small price to pay for ending an edit war that is disruptive to significant portions of the community. Wikipedia is always a work in progress, and nothing is going to be perfectly perfect (especially in the midst of disputes).

You might also want to see m:The Wrong Version for another perspective on this subject. -- Seth Ilys 07:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The fact is that although the user was persistent in putting the material in, it is not factual and as you can see most of it is highly unrelated, not encyclopedia standard and is simply unsourced anti-Pakistan POV. So, although I would appreciate the removal, I realize the pressure on you currently, but hope that you will consider it. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 07:24, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad edit

Thanks for your intrest in Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad but if you check these statemenst [ In Persian http://www.emrouz.info/ShowItem.aspx?ID=3284&p=1] he considered as fascist in political society of Iran.--Sina 20:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lol. Thanks for your reply. I can't really unsderstand Persian as I am currently english-speaking. I can read it somewhat as I can read Arabic. About the edit, I think we should leave it as it is (ultra-conservative hardliner) because even though members of the political society share that view somewhat, I think that not everyone will. We can perhaps say that some consider him a fascist and some consider him what I said. Hope that is allright. If there is still some concern please say so. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 20:45, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppets edit

Please realize that OmerFa and King1 and numerous others are all sockpuppets of SamTr014. This is just an attempt to make himself look like he is getting support. Just thought I'd make you aware. --Anonymous editor 01:50, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm not entirely convinced, becuase OmerFa is showing some separate ideas from Sam. But regardless, I'm not a judge, nor is this something that's going to be won by number of people -- if it gets to that, then we can ask a developer to check if Omer and King are sockpuppets of Sam. But until it's a real issue, I wouldn't worry about it. The arguments are what have merit, not how many people are arguing them. :) kmccoy (talk) 02:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OmerFa edit

Anonymous editor, I am still learning how to use wikipedia. I saw your contributions just now and I now think you are a true muslim. I am sorry. OmerFa 05:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, but I still don't understand why you are trying to create conflict between different South Asian editors in the Pakistan section. Also I have reason to believe that you are a sockpuppet of SamTr. If you aren't then surely you can't possibly constantly agree with him as he possesses many different viewpoints that you do. --Anonymous editor 05:25, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I think India and Pakistan pages should mention sacrifices of Kashmiri freedom fighters. Not mentioning Kashmir anywhere is exactly what India wants. There should be detail information on sacrifices of Kashmiri people. Why did you oppose mention of Kashmiri freedom fighters and their sacrifices? Those martyars surely deserve mention. I opposed mention of Talibans. It is posted in my first post. OmerFa 05:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you want to add your Kashmir info, it belongs in Kashmir article. Pakistan article needs only a brief description of the subject. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 20:48, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Grace edit

Sorry, no, to Mel. I just put it under the same heading because it was about the same person. I'm replying to some bullshit he littered my talkpage with. Grace Note 02:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Lol. --Anonymous editor 02:29, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Kashmir article edit

What do you think would be an acceptable version to all? Why indulge in a pointless waste of time? IndiBoy 02:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think a version without rants about Indian history, consitution and anti-Pakistan allegations is acceptable. Both terrorism things should be cut short and briefly inserted into one section with both sides of the story. Both "Indian state terrorism" and "Modern Terrorism" in a small section of the article is acceptable. When people come to look at the Kashmir article, they don't want 99% anti-Pakistani pro-Indian point of view. They want clear factual information presented in a short neat condition. Hopefully this helps and ends this edit war. --Anonymous editor 02:58, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

With your permission I move these to the discussion section in Kashmir article. Feel free to blank out if you don't like it. IndiBoy 03:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay but they might be a little large. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 03:09, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Your conversion edit

What made you convert to Islam? Did your wife convert as well or was she already Muslim? What branch did you take up? (preceding unsigned statement by user:Barneygumble)

Thank you for your question. No, my wife converted after I became a muslim. She too was learning about Islam perhaps even longer before than me. We both are adherents of the Sunni branch of Islam. Hope that helps.--Anonymous editor 22:13, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

What made you convert?Barneygumble

It was at first an interesting religion but then after I learned more, it became such a brilliant and pure way to live life, that explained many questions that Christianity could never answer. For me, the Qur'an became an absolute fascination, especially with all the brilliant revelations in regards to science, that have only recently been proven by modern sceince. At first, it was such fascination to me that here is a book that was written so many centuries ago and reveals so many of the recent discoveries we are making now. I found that learning more about Islam can clear up several of the misconceptions that currently exist. --Anonymous editor 20:51, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Abraham edit

I thought my edit summaries made that clear. The fact that the Qur'an mentions Abraham is already mentioned in the second sentence. The paragraph in question was discussing the dubious historical nature of the sources on Abraham; thus, the only reason for including the Qur'an in that section would be to point out that since it was written almost 3,000 years after the time Abraham was supposed to have lived, the Qur'an is an even more dubious historical source than the Book of Genesis. I didn't imagine you wanted to include that statement, did you? In any event, Mustafaa also removed Hebrews, which makes sense; Hebrews is a few hundred years older than the Qur'an, but it's still not a historically relevant source. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Benazir Bhutto edit

R you interested in to join the discussion of cleaning up the article of Benazir Bhutto? Talk:Benazir Bhutto--Raju1 03:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More Pakistan edit

Okay, I have made minor changes to the civilian democracy section.. Please check. That is the only integration of the taliban material, correct? Because if it is: I like it. It is small, minor and as NPOV as possible now. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 00:37, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I feel like that edit might be a little too US-centric. Why would a reader about Pakistan care about the US, except in direct connection? Let me tweak it, you tell me what you think. :) kmccoy (talk) 03:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indians have protected Kashmir article!!!! Now nobody can change it!! How can we protect articles on Karachi etc so that Indian's do not lock it? OmerFa 04:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OmerFa, you are an Indian and you have already proven this through your anti-Pakistani POV in the Kashmir article. On top of that, I am 90% sure that you are also an abusive sockpuppet. Please stop vandalizing articles and trying to create conflict between Pakistanis, Indians and other south asian peoples. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 23:21, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Shia edit

Sorry for the delayed response. The first opportunity I get, I will point out the problems, if any, of the Shia pages. At the moment though, unfortunately my time is being taken up elsewhere with other articles. Ragards.--Zereshk 12:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's allright, just inform me if you need any help later. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 14:39, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Hajj edit

I've warned the anon vandal. I'd be reluctant to protect the article, because it would inconvenience a lot of people for the sake of one editor. If he vandalises again, I'll block him, and if it happens again when the block expires, I'll protect for a while. Could you let me know, in case I miss any further problems? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree, in cases of clear vandalism, we block the vandal, we don't protect the article. dab (ᛏ) 08:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Edip Yuksel edit

From what I've seen in his edits User:Edip Yuksel seems to be just about what you have said about him... but, I had heard about him before he came here and he is not grandly significant but I don't think he is anywhere near speedy delete vanity and I do believe he might even deserve an article as a minor author in a controversial movement which seems to be getting more interest (as with all Islam) post towers falling. I do agree that we will have to watch out for his POV in many articles and I've expressed my skepticism about his NPOV abilities... but, I don't think this should have any reflection on whether he gets a page or not... because, we control his page as much as he does, and we can keep it NPOV. gren 03:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

vandalism of your user page edit

I have reverted two vandalism of your user page by 70.105.188.134 (talk • contribs). Please check and report the vandalism. Thanks. --Ragib 05:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Military of Pakistan edit

Would you be interested in discussions on this (Talk:Military of Pakistan) particular page?--PrinceA 00:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for inviting me. --Anonymous editor 00:11, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Editing your user page edit

Sorry, that was a random mistake. I pushed on a few wrong keys. I won't bother you any further.

It's allright. --Anonymous editor June 30, 2005 00:55 (UTC)

neutral sources edit

Who decides if a source is neutral or not and how? deeptrivia 03:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Add topic