Khawar.nehal

Welcome!

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 11:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

November 2012

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to New World Order (conspiracy theory). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Calling a real speech a conspiracy theory is considered NEUTRAL by you maybe. I think it is taking an opinion and blatantly placing it in the head line to spread misinformation.

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Logging out when editing

Deliberately logging out to make controversial edits or edit-war may be seen as an attempt to avoid scrutiny - please remain logged in for these edits. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

NATO in western world

wikipedia on western world

In the contemporary cultural meaning, the phrase "Western world" includes Europe, as well as many countries of European colonial origin with majority European ancestral populations in the Americas and Oceania, such as the United States of America, Canada, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Brazil, Australia and New Zealand.

Israel is not in the western world if you consider wikipedia as of current.

Australia and NZ are. These are better described by NATO countries.

If Israel is not in the western world then it should not be in the anti western sentiment.

January 2014, autism

Please review the following pages, and discuss your proposed changes at Talk:Autism:

• WP:3RR, WP:BRD and WP:EDITWAR-- if you continue to reinstate poorly sourced edits, you could be blocked
• WP:MEDRS, our medical sourcing guidelines
• WP:WIAFA and WP:OWN#Featured articles, discuss on Talk:Autism

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits and reverts

Hello, I'm User:Anupmehra. I've earlier asked you to leave me a message on my talk page in case you don't understand how does your edit to this page violates Wikipedia neutral point of view policy. I have undid your one revert you did recently made to the article Muslim. It appeared nonconstructive to me. I request you to not start a WP:EDITWAR and help making Wikipedia a better place. If my undo seems unpleasant to you. Leave me a msg bottom to this one, explaining how. Thanks, AnupMehra ^✈ 14:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Look at the reference provided. It is not my opinion. As you said. "It appeared nonconstructive to me" That is an opinion. So please keep your opinions out of the facts. First attempt to understand the difference in meanings and then talk to me.

If you think your opinion is more important than facts and references of authorative books and also what over a billion people know, then you can argue with them.

Why are you asking me when you do not care to know the difference in meanings.

It is a very fundamental point in the study of Allah. Being one is different from "nothing except the one".

If you still do not get it, ask others what the difference is. Ask muslim scholars intead of other opinions of people.

And stop reverting the edits which have references of authority provided without assigning any reason. Or using your viewpoint as the reason. Then claiming your opinion is in favor of neutrality is very rude.

Khawar

January 2014

Hello, I'm Twsx. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Muslim, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 09:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. AnupMehra ^✈ 16:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm McSly. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. McSly (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Quick note

Hi Khawar.nehal

I noticed that you have recently started editing health-related articles, and making charges of "Western bias" like this and this and this.

It is well known that Wikipedia indeed has some bias (see WP:BIAS) and there are efforts underway, all the time, to deal with that. However, with respect to anything with a scientific basis, Wikipedia recognizes no bias. There is just one science, and one scientific method - there is no "western science" vs "eastern science". That is the way Wikipedia is built, deep down in its guts. If you want to change this, making complaints on individual articles will not get you anywhere - it will just upset you and other editors, because we are talking about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines here, not just the whims of some small group of editors.

Being an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" has meant that over the years, Wikipedia has developed lots of policies and guidelines (WP:PAG) to help provide a "body of law" as it were, that form a foundation for rational discussion. Without that foundation, this place would be a wild west - a truly ugly place. But with the foundation, there are ways to rationally work things out - if, and only if, all the parties involved accept that foundation and work within it. One of the hardest things for inexperienced people, is to understand not only that this foundation exists, but what its letter and spirit is, (I emphasize the spirit, because too often people fall prey to what we call "wikilawyering").

Content about health-related issues can be especially contentious here. There is LOTS of crap out there on the internet, and there are editors who want to come here and push it (real tinfoil hat stuff). Please think about that.. this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. As a result, over the years Wikipedia has developed some very clear policies and guidelines about how we handle health-related information in particular. The relevant policies and guidelines are Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Fringe_theories_and_pseudoscience (policy), WP:FRINGE (guideline) and WP:MEDRS (guideline). The bottom line is that on health related matters, Wikipedia stands very solidly with the scientific consensus on health issues. (The policies and guidelines I just linked to, there, are the ones you would have to change first, before the kinds of edits you have been making would have a chance of not being reverted.)

The more I have learned about how things are set up here - not just the letter of PAG and the various drama boards and administrative tools, but their spirit - the more impressed I have become at how beautiful this place can be. It takes time to learn both the spirit and the letter of PAG, and to really get aligned with Wikipedia's mission to crowdsource a reliable, NPOV source of information for the public (as "reliable" and "NPOV" are defined in PAG!).

People come edit for many reasons, but one of the main ones is that they are passionate about something. That passion is a double-edged sword. It drives people to contribute which has the potential for productive construction, but it can also lead to tendentious editing, which is really destructive. Advocacy is one of our biggest bedevilments.

Anyway, I do hope you slow down a bit and understand how things work in Wikipedia before you get into heavy disputes about content. This is unfortunately a common mistake that new editors make but there is no reason you have to continue down that road, which is going to lead to misery for you, and will probably lead you to burn out and leave. There are lots of people here who are happy to teach, if you open up and listen, and ask authentic questions, not rhetorical ones. In any case, good luck!Jytdog (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

if you want to continue the conversation, I replied to you on my Talk page, here. Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Notification

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

QuackGuru (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)