At times whether to respond back or not is quite catch-22. On one hand lectures being handed over to me being asked to be concise, to their long list now even funny charges being added, idk, intends to just mock me or mock the system. Now usual content deletions of my sourced contributions like at even Non-vegetarian are being cited as great examples of my bad personal record. I am confused Idk whether to laugh or cry.
Here roughly 9 months before TB wrote to me ".. Love in Pakistan and Urdu Feminist Literature are fascinating (and valid) topics - if you need resources, give a ping. I will take up the article on forced conversion. .." But as soon as women's issues are covered at Public spaces their patriarchal structure and power on Wikipedia feels threatened.
Take google.com, books.google.com, scholar.google.com search for "Public spaces" "women" and various countries names including Pakistan, for many countries including Pakistan entire WP articles can be written and substantial part can be criticism, Let global women know why a sections dedicated to women issues in public spaces can not be there in Public spaces article and all women related issues are to be compulsively restricted to special for women articles. Why public spaces article can not be opened. Was there any restriction to begin with Pakistan and later adding others? Some one already covering those sources will naturally cover that. Show me existing article talk page RfC consensus against. Is that affecting male power structures on Wikipedia that I am being mansplained and dislodged. For that they bring me to ARE with repeating fake bad faith attacks of proven long duration sock accounts?
One likes or not likes or not, as of this day 1969 Rabindra Sarobar Stadium en masse sexual violence controversy is first known on record non conflict time en masse sexual violence controversy with multiple reliable sources for notability. Idk why any one should be afraid that to be covered.
Examples after examples (17) like this one show my best possible editorial neutrality. With all humility I submit, if any one feels my content is not perfect then should have been discussed on article talk pages without resorting to personalization tactics.
I would request discussion closing admin to let me know if they want any specific content related clarifications from me for the baseless pile of them submitted by USaamo AKG and TB. Any detail logical scrutiny will prove most of that to be just frivolous much of it making mountains out of molehills intending to smear and hound for their own POVs being hurt in some way.
Last but not least, let me, wish best luck to ongoing hounding and synchronized symphonies for times to come.
Detail submission
Still to be properly updated
At times whether to respond back or not is quite catch-22. On one hand lectures being handed over to me being asked to be concise, to their long list now even funny charges being added, idk, intends to just mock me or mock the system.
Here roughly 9 months before TB wrote to me ".. Love in Pakistan and Urdu Feminist Literature are fascinating (and valid) topics - if you need resources, give a ping. I will take up the article on forced conversion. .." But as soon as women's issues are covered at Public spaces their patriarchal power on Wikipedia feels threatened.
Now usual content deletions of my sourced contributions like at even Non-vegetarian are being cited as great examples of my bad personal record. I am confused Idk whether to laugh or cry. Rather than writing essay TB can give link to my contrib stats page and claim as pure evidence against me.Roughly total 13500 edits 300 are deleted, 42 pages are deleted. Roughly 4000 talk pages I interacted for all those contribs and diatribes received against can easily be cited as incompetence mine or any one's elses.
I have not deleted any from my talk pages, see history of TB talk page is it okay some one turns up add all allegations without scrutiny and bring them to ARE.
In one of early interaction aboutt drafts promoted by me TB said to me ".. :Love in Pakistan and Urdu Feminist Literature are fascinating (and valid) topics - if you need resources, give a ping. .." (10). See 10 Sept.22 time stamps of TB is @ WP:Pakistan notice board to post their message.: (11, on the notice board before theirs is my message making RfC invite clearly informing BLP issue. The smart Head student of ARE since last one year before attending BLP priority they first they crosscheck my recent contribs of that time remove sourced content (12) issue threat smacking with anger and arrogance @ my talk (13) without asking my perspective or content related talk page discussion they go over to Hall monitor talk page and smear against me (14). The briefed and influenced inspired hall monitor issues standard notice to me and assures them of a 'deeper look', no need of content discussion on talk pages! One could guess what is coming. The hall monitor leaves my most polite answer unreplyed and smear @ this notice board worth of my answer was just rambling for them. Is beauty of this synchronized symphony new to this board ? (15, 16)
Articles like Hermeneutics of feminism in IslamorWomen related laws in Pakistan are not my own creations, I just helped those after coming on WP shore. Even if you dislodge me slow but steady fourth feminist wave is going to take entry in multiple forms in times to come for sure.
While ongoing fourth wave of feminism is already moving ahead asking for equal spaces pushing boundaries offline and also on other digital and social media is slow to reach WP that does not mean no one coming here other than me. We already have article on Minto Park women's monument, Anti-monuments in Mexico . We have Anti-monumentalism and my neutral entry there (shenanigans in TB's words) TB & company is most welcome to delete that if they want and in their complaint list against on this board.(17)
By now everyone would understand I am targeting feminism only to Pakistan is proven fake narrative. If my content is not perfect then should have been discussed on article talk pages
Take google.com, books.google.com, scholar.google.com search for "Public spaces" "women" and various countries names including Pakistan, for many countries including Pakistan entire WP articles can be written and substantial part can be criticism, let global women know why a sections dedicated to women issues in Public spaces can not be there in Public spaces article and all women related issues are to be compulsively restricted and Public spaces article can not be opened. Was there any restriction to begin with Pakistan and later adding others? Some one already covering those sources will naturally cover that. Show me existing article talk page RfC consensus against. Is that affecting male power structures on Wikipedia that I am being mansplained and dislodged. For that you bring me to ARE with repeating fake bad faith attacks of proven sock accounts?
Bengal background TB likes or not, as of this day 1969 Rabindra Sarobar Stadium en masse sexual violence controversy is first known on record non conflict time en masse sexual violence controversy with multiple reliable sources for notability. With their misleading misinterpreting interference I strongly recommend TBan on them for Feminism, and South Asia related articles.
I would request discussion closing admin to let me know if they want any specific content related clarifications from me for the baseless pile of them submitted by USaamo AKG and TB. Any detail logical scrutiny will prove most of that to be just frivolous much of it making mountains out of molehills intending to smear and hound for their own POVs being hurt in some way.
