User talk:MinaretDk: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:18, 19 January 2007

Welcome!

Hi MinaretDk! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! --D-Boy 19:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

warning

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Rumpelstiltskin223 23:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Excuse me? What nonsense? Please be specific. MinaretDk 23:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove sourced edits and mass-blank text. It is vandalism and will be reported. If you have any problems discuss in the talk page first. Also, see WP:STALK regarding your edits to Anti-Brahmanism. Thaa. Rumpelstiltskin223 00:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I explained myself on the talk page. Rediff is not an established reliable source, and everything else I deleted was either irrelevant, or uncited. Your talk page shows you get banned frequently, Maybe you should entertain the possibility that you are in the wrong here. MinaretDk 00:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No.Also, please see these refs:

[1] [2] [3] [4]

Also, rediff is considered a reliable source on wikipedia. there is no if, and or but here.You should familiarize yourself more with wikipedia rules. Thaa. Rumpelstiltskin223 00:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is your point? The 'rediff' article doesn't even name its author. For all we know its copied from another publication. WP:RS outlines what makes a reliable source. Nothing to suggest rediff is a reliable source. I dont dispute US state dept is a reliable source, so thats irrelevant. Thuu. MinaretDk 00:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Rumpelstiltskin223 00:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 Also, rediff is considered a reliable source on wikipedia. there is no if, and or but here.You should familiarize yourself more with wikipedia rules. Thaa. [[User:Rumpelstiltskin223|Rumpelstiltskin223]] 00:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
-What is your point? The 'rediff' article doesn't even name its author. For all we know its copied from another publication. WP:RS outlines what makes a reliable source. Nothing to suggest rediff is a reliable source. I dont dispute US state dept is a reliable source, so thats irrelevant. [[User:MinaretDk|MinaretDk]] 00:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
+What is your point? The 'rediff' article doesn't even name its author. For all we know its copied from another publication. WP:RS outlines what makes a reliable source. Nothing to suggest rediff is a reliable source. I dont dispute US state dept is a reliable source, so thats irrelevant. Thuu. [[User:MinaretDk|MinaretDk]] 00:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 == 3RR ==