User talk:Adil your

Welcome
 Hello Adil your, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of Contents


 * Department directory

Need help?


 * Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
 * Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.


 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
 * The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.


 * Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[Image:Signature_icon.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.


 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Roleplayer Good luck, and have fun.

Your questions
It appears that the editor who was reporting you is either taking a break, or retiring. When you are in a content dispute, and another editor reports you for vandalism, 99% of the time what happens is what just happened - the person who erroneously reported you is informed the edits are not vandalism. If you like, you can remove the warnings from your talk page. Just continue trying to talk to other editors when there is a difference of opinion, and continue reading the policy and guideline pages and asking questions as you are doing! Tiy are off to a good start. I am sorry you were concerned due to another editor's misunderstanding of the Vandalism policy. I will watch this page for a few days, so if you have further questions just ask them here. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad of Ghor
Can you provide sources for the edits you made to the Muhammad of Ghor article on 18 February 2009, especially about Prithviraj? Thanks. --Bejnar (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. As you can see, the entire article needs to be properly sourced, the only things sourced are his unknown ethnicity and his current revered status in Pakistan. --Bejnar (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

re:hello

 * We have to follow Wp:BLP for his article.ANd as a general rule ,

1.don't maintain a sock puppy 2.And find reliable sources before adding something 3.follow WP:NPOV 4.And follow Wp:OR.for further contact give you e-mail. User:Yousaf465 (talk)

Unblock

 * Ok, your unblock reason above makes little sense. The dates mix-up is a software issue; your block is and has always been set to expire on March 8.  But I'm also pretty confused about this block; I'm going to ask for some clarification.  Mango juice talk 21:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was of the view that if somebody had a problem with my edit on Khemkaran Article they should start a thread in Discussion Page...And if I choose not to listen then send me a warning and if they still find my edits as vandalism then report me to an administrator...Now for some strange reason i think that, and please don't mind this, that this action is a bit personal. Just to make it a little clear, visit this, Now this was a complaint against YellowMonkey, Then look at this, Now in the thread with the heading "Read This", he clearly states "You've been vandalising Khemkaran. Blocked. I checked your version against that of Rama's Arrow and Tintin. YellowMonkey" Now visit this, and Please tell me that where in the name of God, have I put any edits against that of Rama's Arrow and Tintin...Because I wasn't able to find any...And if he is accusing me of sock puppetry then please check my ip address yourself and you will find out that it was not me who posted those threads... This is my entire case, and I apologise if you find it a bit too aggresive because this is the second time I have been blocked by YellowMonkey......Thankyou....Adil your (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S: Well it wasn't only the date that changed but also the block since it became direct...You can see that my first request wasn't for a direct block...And there was a note with red coloured text explaining that it was not direct block...How can that change....I'm a little confused here....Have I been blocked TWICE...Kindly throw some light on this.....Best Wishes...Adil your (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You were directly blocked last night by . As far as I can tell, your edits are in violation of WP:NPOV and are entirely unsourced. Making non-neutral edits or edits without reliable sources will get you blocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, for your kind Information all the info I put in the article was nuetral and the only statement that according to some was a bit off the WP:NPOV was the Fourth-Panipat Statement. But those were not my words but rather the words of Ravi Rikhye who by the way is an Indian Military Analyst...The source is this article from defencejournal.com ...Now if an INDIAN defence analyst gives a statement about INDIAN casulties...then how-come you blame me for being Pro-Pakistani for putting this statement up when the the statement has nothing to with Pakistan in the first place....And I think that instead of asking me to provide a source or discussing the validity of the statement, Just blocking me up for the soul reason that you don't like my edits is a bit unfair....Plus if you really think that "non-neutral edits or edits without reliable sources should get one blocked" then how come the editors who reverted my edits and put their own UNSOURCED edits are still roaming around free when I m blocked even when I have given a source and still want to discuss the matter......I just feel a bit dishearted upon this injustice.....Adil your (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Valid Reason

 * I meant for the Khemkaran Article....What was wrong there.....??? The stuff I edited was unsourced....Check it up yourself...


 * Please note that user who replied above was a vandal, and not an administrator. I have removed their comments. Dominic·t 11:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked; your edits seem to be troubling some other users but I can't find any reasonable interpretation under which to call them vandalism, so you should have been engaged in discussion. However that cuts both ways: now that you are clear there is some strong objection to your edits, it's up to you to start a discussion on the talk page. I honestly don't know what exactly about your edit people object to but I might guess its the inclusion of the unattributed quote at the end of the battle section. Engage in discussion and this shouldn't happen again. Mango juice talk 14:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou very much....I will act upon your advice and start a disscussion...

March 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Muhammad of Ghor has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you.  єmarsee •  Speak up!  19:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well strangely your revert is also UNSOURCED....so how come u blame me for being unconstructive when u can't provide any reference yourself...Plz provide some reference for YOUR claim before reverting anything in the future...

Blocked for edit warring
You have been warned repeatedly before to stop editing disruptively and edit waring on Wikipedia article pages.

Our policy on edit warring, our policy on three reverts per page per 24 hrs, and our policy on editing in a disruptive manner all apply to the manner which you've been editing. This is not OK.

You've been blocked for a week for escalating this behavior. Please do not continue it when the block expires.

If you understand what you did wrong and agree to stop doing it in the future, the block can be reduced, but you have to fundamentally change your behavior in how you edit. Wikipedia works by cooperation and consensus - talk to other editors, talk to them on article talk pages and on their user talk pages. Just editing information back and forth repeatedly is not acceptable behavior. Disagreements need to be discussed on talk, hashed out there.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below.

A friendly warning
You really not supposed to keep reverting when several people clearly disagree with you; it's widely regarded as disruptive. I see you've done this at Muhammad of Ghor and at Prithviraj III. You're supposed to discuss it on the talk page and go find WP:reliable sources to back up what you say. It's explained here: WP:BRD. If you carry as you are, you will find yourself blocked again, this time for longer. Please be careful in future, &mdash; Roger Davies  talk 07:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Battles of Tarain
I also checked the Urdu version of Tarikh-e Farishtah, and it more or less agrees word for word with the English translation; I can't check the original because I don't have a Persian copy (unless I can find one online). Writing anything about these topics really does seem to be like stirring up a hornets nest; I had no idea! Energyworm (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Prithiviraj Chauhan
Adil, I am not going to get into an edit war with you. I just undid this guy's edit of the name Chauhan. Take a look and see if I accidently removed some of your stuff with that "undo". If I did please replace it.

Cheers

Gorkhali (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Quotations
Please don't remove requests for citation for quotes as you did at the Muhammad of Ghor‎ article. Quotations must be cited to reliable, verifiable sources. Wikipedia:Quotations; see also use of cquote at Template:cquote which says "It generally should not be used in articles unless there is a good justification for doing so." --Bejnar (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikireader
please check British Pakistani and see for yourself this editors pov pushing please report him and remove his garbage 86.162.69.12 (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)  

State-sponsored terrorism
Hi, I've edited the section on India to try to remove some POV language ("humiliation" etc.) It's obviously necessary to reference such material, but I think 8 refs for one sentence was excessive. I've pruned things a little, but I suspect that 3 or 4 refs are still too many for one sentence. I decided that is was particularly useful to keep the neutral (Turkish) and Indian refs as this will protect against accusations of biased sourcing. I've aslo unfortunately ahd to add a dact tag as one of the links you added was broken. Is it sources in one of the other articels you used?--Peter cohen (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Unblock Request

 * P.S - Kafziel has been edit warring in Deedat Article... And now after editing the page, he has put a Full-Protection on page so no one can edit it... Then he blocked both me and Islamforever1, accusing us of being sock puppets... I don't think that admin should block someone on Personal reasons such as dispute in an article... He should discuss this issue on talk page rather then blocking me permanently for something I haven't done... It is also requested from an admin to take a look on his activities... Thankyou Adil your (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not edit warring. I've been reverting your edits because you are an abusive sockpuppet. That will be plain to any admin who looks at this, so, if you want to be unblocked, I suggest you try a different tactic. Kafziel Complaint Department 14:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol....What are u talking about...??? Have u checked my IP....??? I doubt that you have, otherwise you would regret saying that I am an ABUSIVE SOCK-PUPPET.... because I am NOT..... Its open for any admin to check this out..... BTW you are crossing the line here.... Not only have u accused me of being a sock-puppet just because I disagree with your Point-of-View, but Now you are throwing INSULTS as well... Kafziel, not only are u mis-using your authority but now u r misbehaving as well.... Kindly refrain from such behavior ...Peace... Adil your (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In what way is it so obvious that Adil is a sockpuppet of Islamforever1? Only a few minutes of research shows that it is already established that he is in Pakistan, when Islamforever1 isn't. Could someone give actual evidence instead of just "I looked and it's clear"? Dominic·t 03:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All that link tells me is that he's no stranger to using block-evading sock puppets. He showed up out of the blue in the middle of an edit war and called another user's edit "vandalism". (Mind you, if Adil is telling the truth and is not a sockpuppet/sockpuppeteer, he had never interacted with Peter Ballard and would have no reason for such hostility.) When Ballard undid Adil's edit, another Islamforever sock reverted him again.


 * Note also that Adil had no complaints about being blocked until I also fully protected the article, preventing the AutoPylot sockpuppet from editing.


 * I'll admit it's probable that Islamforever is a sockpuppet of Adil, rather than the other way around. But that's just semantics. It's also possible that the two are not the same person, and Adil was simply recruited for the edit war. But, according to WP:TEAMWORK, "when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity." And here we are. It's obvious he's prepared with all the old arguments about IP addresses and account creation dates, but I'm not letting him game the system that way. At worst, this account is a block-evading sockpuppeteer. At best, it's an edit-warring meatpuppet. Either way, after further review, I still stand by the block. However, "indefinite" does not mean "permanent"; if Adil can offer more than tirades and accusations, I'm willing to listen. Kafziel Complaint Department 05:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems like a staggering assumption of bad faith to just say "he's prepared with all the old arguments about IP addresses and account creation dates." How else could he say that he's not the same person? Anyone in his position would think it's relevant to point out that he doesn't share an IP. And, obviously the link I provided tells a lot more than just that Adil had a sockpuppet previously. When there is an accusation of sockpuppetry, I would think it's somewhat significant that Adil is demonstrably on a different continent from Islamforever1. I don't know how you could even reply to my pointing that out by saying that it's still probable that Islamforever1 is his sockpuppet. This is an account with hundreds of edits in a variety of topics, who has edited the article and its talk page a dozen times going back a month, who has a very distinctive writing style in his approach to grammar and punctuation (when Islamforever1's grammar is quite good), and who is known to be in a different physical location than Islamforever1, and you've just summarily blocked it claiming that he showed up out of the blue when he didn't or that he was "recruited" when ther eis no such evidence. While I think this is a case of overzealousness, it's no surprise based on this that he thinks that he thinks he was blocked for his point of view. Dominic·t 06:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that he claims he was blocked for his point of view is probably the main reason nobody else has answered his unblock request. Because it's nonsense. I don't care what his point of view is. I actually don't even know what his point of view is. I don't really even know who Ahmed Deedat is. I just know an edit war when I see one. He hasn't edited a "variety of topics". He has edit warred in a very narrow set of subjects, and this fits right in with them.
 * Since the article is now fully protected, he won't be edit warring on it. As I said above, if he can give me an assurance that he's willing to edit constructively, I'm willing to unblock him. If he just wants to argue about POV and how the world is conspiring against him, then I'm not. And neither, it would seem, is anyone else. Kafziel Complaint Department 13:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So You DID block me for my point-of-view. Thanks a-lot for admitting that. BTW, I never said that the WORLD was conspiring against me. I just said that your accusations were false, which Now you yourself admit....I think that you have finally accepted the fact that I am NOT a Sock-Puppet... So I guess there is probably no reason for the block to remain...Adil your (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW... No evidence is provided against me.... My account was neither created on the same day nor by the same Ip, like other puppets... I have not edited Deedat article up till now.... The evidence page does not give any details, infact it doesn't even mention my page.... This is absurd... How can I be called his sock-puppet without evidence.... Does he posses the same Ip as me.... This is impossible ofcourse, so why am I being accused.....??? Adil your (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If I unblock you, will you participate productively in the discussion on the article's talk page? Kafziel Complaint Department 13:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ofcourse... Thats what I have been doing all along... No one has accused me of vandalizing the article, NOT EVEN YOU.... And its pretty clear even to Dominict that I have been participating productively on the talk-pages for a long time....Yes, I even participated in Deedat discussions.... You can go and have a look..... all my edits were in good faith, and just to remind you.... I am NOT blocked for VANDALIZING... So asking me to be constructive is really shocking because I WAS constructive.... What I was REALLY blocked for was SOCK-PUPPETRY.... And I think its quite clear that I am NOT a sock puppet.... So keeping the block is quite unnecessary... Adil your (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I will unblock you, Adil. I understand that being blocked like that can be traumatic. I would like to ask you to be more thoughtful about what you say and do in the future. For example, there is a very good reason why your requests to be unblocked didn't get very far. They weren't requests at all; they were demands and accusations written with an over-abundance of capital letters. A little tact can go a long way, even if you think the other person is wrong. The same is true in article disputes. Don't call something vandalism just because you disagree with it. That is considered uncivil, because you are saying that the person is deliberately harming the encyclopedia, when they are just doing what they believe is right. In all cases, when a subject is contentious, it is better to discuss calmly on the talk page than to revert. Dominic·t 23:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks-a-lot Dominict for all your help... Sorry for the capital letters, I guess I was just frustrated for not being unblocked by daniel... I was shocked when he said that he was totally convinced that I was a sock-puppet... That was what made me frustrated and I started using those capital letters... Anyways, thanks for all your advice and help, I will keep that in mind.....PEACE....Adil your (talk) 09:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahmad Deedat
Assalamo Aleikom Adil. I suggest you undo your last edit @ Ahmad Deedat's page because his meeting with Gary Miller and James Cunningham (who were both Muslim converts at the time) was actually a lecture not a debate.


 * Hi, Concerning the Answering-Islam-link: I have already said what I had to say, so unless something spectacular evolves from the discussion between you and Peter Ballard, I will not repeat myself on that point. Thus, good luck in making a compromise with Peter!Jeff5102 (talk) 09:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Okie Dokie... Adil your (talk) 11:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

State sponsored terrorism article
Adil your, I request you not to continue POV pushing related in India section. For the obvious reasons, please add only those backed by reliable and neutral sources. For the same reasons, It is unaccepatable to source these allegations by Pakistani newspapers and channels. Another humble request, please do not waste everybody's time fighting for this single article. There are 100s of Pakistan related articles that needs significant improvement of quality. Lots of Pakistan related stuff are still unwritten in Wikipedia. Write them and improve them. I guarantee my support anything related to this. Please make Wikipedia a better place rather than continuing the prejudiced lobbying here --  Tinu  Cherian  - 06:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you are mistaken my friend, I have never pushed any POV. Go to the India section and see for yourself .... All the references are from WP:RS... I am not alleging anything, I only wrote what the news and intelligence agencies say.... And the article contains clippings from foreign policy mag and Asian tribune and statements from Holbrooke... And they are not Pakistani as far as I know... Secondly I have been writing other articles already and I am one of the biggest contributors in them... And lastly about your lobbying comment... I am not lobbying, go and watch ReagentsPark, YellowMonkey, Wikireader41... Strangely they always tend to do the same edit with the Indian section and what is more surprising that they are all indians... And so are you... My edits are very much NPOV and Sourced from WP:RS... If there is anything which you find a bit biased then we can talk and develop a consensus, but blindly reverting a 26 refs section is not the way to develop a consensus.... Thanks for the support, I appreciate that... Adil your (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And just a little piece of information, Look what YellowMonkey has been doing here... This is what is called lobbying my friend... And here is what you call Uncivil behaviour, if you have read WP:civil... And here is some more... So first you must learn the meaning of the word lobbying before labeling me as a lobbyist....Peace.....Adil your (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please keep a cool head. No need to boil over. A Pakistani '''yousaf465'
 * Just to set the record straight I am a tax paying American citizen. I am of course proud to be of Indian descent. those missiles that are fired into Pakistan by US Drone attacks in Pakistan are paid for by my tax money.  you should be thankful to people like us for saving your country from Islamist extremism.Wikireader41 (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Then why they always miss Meshud. He is also got special about himself. That is for you to check. '''yousaf465'
 * Yeah, the same extremists which are actually funded by the Indian agencies.... Adil your (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * really and didnt RAW execute 9/11. and dont all Indians want to rape all pakistani girls. And this is all a conspiracy between Hindus, Jews and Christians to eradicate all muslims. would not expect anything else from somebody who graduated Pakistan Studies.  I doubt if you ever will figure out NPOV is .  banning you seems to be the only solution to save WP.Wikireader41 (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Chill guys, plz dont forget we are all here to build an encyclopedia --  Tinu  Cherian  - 18:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This edit is not expected from a Wikipedian. Please don't vandalise wikipedia. It is a request --  Tinu  Cherian  - 16:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This was six months back when I was new and didn't know the policies... I already have been warned thrice for this edit, whats the point of bringing this up now... This has nothing to do with the POV pushing by YellowMonkey on SSP Page... Kindly stop defending your lobby, And just accept that these kind of edits are also not expected from a wikipedian... Look here, here, here, and here as well... Adil your (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistani Wars
After going through your dramatic rewriting of South Asian history, I'm going to be keeping a close watch on your future edits. Next time, remember to mention your sources before adding any non-sense. --Nosedown (talk) 09:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't become non-sense just because it didn't have sources... The previous version was also unreferenced and "nonsensical". And I Did come up with a few references when I was reverted. Adil your (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This BTW was also six months back, And I was blocked for this as well... So kindly talk about my recent edits, and keep as close a watch as you want.... But I am not going to let YellowMonkey get away with his "Recent" POV Pushing...Peace... Adil your (talk) 09:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And I am not going to let you get away with your 'recent' POV pushing. NO peace with POV pushers unless they completely quit POV pushing.Wikireader41 (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you meant to say 'your recent NPOV'... And I will have Peace with everybody, even with POV Pushers like you and YellowMonkey... So, Peace .... Adil your (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

King Zebu aka nosedown
Just wanted to inform you of this Monkey Hanuman strikes again moaning behind your back about you to other Indian editors that’s why this Indian editor above messaged you if you already know just delete cheers friend 86.162.71.49 (talk) 11:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot bro... Peace... Adil your (talk) 10:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The above comment is by Banned user Nangparbat. you are encouraging banned vandal users by thanking them publicly and calling them your brother.  thus you are directly encouraging Vandalism on WP. be very very careful.  No peace with POV pushers.Wikireader41 (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Hersfold/Vandal_watch

User:Thegreyanomaly/Nangparbat the evader

Suspected sock puppets/Nangparbat

Sockpuppet investigations/Nangparbat/Archive

AKA

AKA

AKA


 * I don't know about him, but he just informed me about a bigger vandal and a notorious POV pusher, YellowMonkey who is canvassing to start an edit war with me... Hence the IP deserved to be thanked... And as far as I remember, you are also the part of that lobby... So please stop defending POV-Pusher YellowMonkey... Peace... Adil your (talk) 06:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikireader aka Indian troll
Just a preveiw of the POV of the Indian american nationalist Wikireader41 ignore this jerk this coward is a internet warrior hell bent on defacing Pakistani related articles cheers bro 86.158.239.78 (talk) 10:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Indian wikivandal strikes
The troll is back and is adding unsourced vedic trash to the state sponsored terrorism article he must be stopped 86.153.129.154 (talk) 09:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
'''yousaf465'  14:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Help on Mughal empire
Hey brother I would like to ask for some assistance on the mughal empire article it has been attacled by Indian pov pushing blocked user Mrpontiac1 who made a sock account Aamirshkh take a look at this dif: He has removed all images of Pakistani monuments off the article and replaced them with Indian images to make out Pakistan had nothing to do with the mughals please could you restore the article to its former state here is a dif showing the normal state: I ask you to re add the images of Pakistani monuments and remove the nationalist edits of the banned user cheers Chainder4 (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Meetup.
Are you from Karachi? Did you heard of Wikipedia_talk:Meetup/Karachi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.63.58 (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Warning
Stop vandalizing Mohammad of Ghor, you reverted the page to the previous incorrect version after I've corrected it. You removed information with a reference to Nancy Dupree, who is the most knowledgable person on Afghanistan's history and is currently working at Kabul University. You also removed information with references to Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia University, Shinawatra University, Encarta. The location of his death is not Ghor, he died in India. Information about his brother, uncle, their background is clearly explained why are you removing this? If you have issues use the talk page but do not vandalize the page again.--119.73.2.214 (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 119.73.2.214 is banned . His POV is not supported by authoritative reference works of oriental studies. Tajik (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding Ghurids: here are three excellent references:
 * "Ghurids" in Encyclopaedia Iranica
 * "Al-Hind, the making of the Indo-Islamic world" by André Wink
 * "History of civilizations of Central Asia" by M.S. Asimov/C.E. Bosworth
 * Regards. Tajik (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to WLM!
You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Pakistan. This message was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Pakistan User Group
You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Pakistan. This message was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments - Pakistan


'''Hi !

Wiki Loves Monuments, the world's largest photography competition, will be taking place in Pakistan this September. The competition is all about capturing the cultural monuments and heritage sites of Pakistan and uploading these images on Commons to create an online repository which will be freely available to all.

Start taking photos of the sites enlisted here and upload them in September to be eligible for national and international prizes.

Email: contact@wikilovesmonuments.pk Official website: wikilovesmonuments.pk Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WikiLovesMonumentsPK Posted by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Pakistan

Pakistani Cultural Heritage - Edit Drive
Hi !

Wikimedia Community User Group Pakistan is organizing an edit drive for Pakistani Wikipedians on Pakistani Cultural Heritage throughout the month of July. Top three contributors will be given a gift pack containing Wikipedia merchandise.

You can read the event details here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC) You are receiving this message as a member of WikiProject Pakistan

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)