User talk:Intothefire

3swordzreply4
I caught your contribs on "Kakkar." Prove that the people you listed are Punjabi Jatt Kakkars. The first two are from Goa and Mumbai, respectively, and there is no documented evidence that any of them have ties to Punjab. Your source for RK Kakar is downright pathetic. There can easily be other Kakar clans unrelated to the Punjabi one.

You also threw on a bunch of unsources personal anthropological views on their origin. The Pashtun Kakars are distinct from the Punjabis. Keep your reactionary theories to yourself, your politics are showing.

Your source bears no mention of Kakkar "Khatris" on pg. 516 like you cite; the quote you leave is an incoherent mess of nothing. The fact that you would use an unqualified orientalist like Ibbetson (which only you seem fond of) for information is incredulous. Get a newer, more accurate, less patronizing source; that book is not original research, but merely claims and hearsay regarding (mythological) histories and far-from-universal clan "tradition." Call me crazy, but I have the feeling that no one is really descended from Hindu gods. The book gives no real anthropological origins/migrations/etc.

Remember, if your going to contribute anything, the burden of credible evidence lies on you, not me.

And respond to my three other posts; don't let this big bad Jatt scare you mute or anything, lol. Remember to keep your responses on your page since you are so fond of records; don't bother spamming my page with drivel again.

I guess I can't really expect a response though; from your talk page it seems that there is already a long line of people you have pissed off by interjecting your beliefs into everything.

I'll leave this near the top of your complaint-list of a talk page so you'll notice it. You can't just call me out and then duck every response while you persist in your agenda. 3swordz   (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. 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   and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Xsamix 09:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Why are you always writing India & Hinduism in anything pertaining to Pakistan
I have noticed that you routinely insert the word india and hinduism into many issues that have nothing to do with them particularly in reference to articles related to Pakistan. Stop falsifying history and please stick to the facts. Aimless distortion of history and the false promotion of incorrect facts and information using vague resources does not help either. Please stop doing so as this constitutes a violation of Wikipedia rules and you will be reported. Thank you.

Hinduism
--D-Boy 11:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Hindu and Buddhist archetectural heritage of Pakistan
Your recent edit to Hindu and Buddhist archetectural heritage of Pakistan (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 19:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Kashmiri Muslim tribes from Hindu Lineage
A tag has been placed on Kashmiri Muslim tribes from Hindu Lineage, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. If you plan to add more material to the article, I advise you to do so immediately. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template  to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. – ipso 12:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi
I will soon discuss with you all the points you raised. Siddiqui 07:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi, thanks to youe comments. I could not understand which of writing made you smile. I respect all relegions and beleive that no relegion supports evil practices and these bad people exist every where belonging to all relegions and their deeds must not be taken that their trait is commanded by relegion.

I appologise if my commnets about khatris in section pre partion people of sheikhan have digusted you. But it is a tarit found every where in business class. Hope you will guide me at wikipedia. With regards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abulfazl (talk • contribs) 07:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Hi
Read your comments. You are absolutely right this stereotyping is so much common that people don't think of going into depth and watch if such things really exist or not, and I have observed it my own case as being a Shia Muslim from childhood I used to here from even my closest freinds the things that had no root had I got astonished when I heard these kind of things about ourselves like shia cut the childern and make haleem from their flesh or shia Quran had 40 parts etc. I happened to view gita, Sri granth sahib and I think that these holy books also represnt the muslim beleif of tawheed and also being chadhar from chander bansi rajputs I can never be claiming any kinda arabian ancestry and beibg descended from a holy lineage can not make myself respectable unless my deeds are good enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abulfazl (talk • contribs) 06:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

wikistalking and harassment
Please do not leave messages such as the ones you did on the userpage and talkpage of user:Szhaider. It construes stalking and harassment, which will not be tolerated. You will be blocked without further warning. Rama's arrow 15:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I'm afraid your desire to post that comment is not justifiable - we do not attack other users on Wikipedia or brand them one way or another. Please have a look at WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA. I suggest you not add that post anywhere - the context will be clear to anyone viewing the page history. Rama's arrow  17:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The above warning was received by me in response to the following message I posted on user Szhaider s talk page. []

My refferences to his post were factual, yet he found them offensive enough to make a complaint about me. Made me wonder why he was so eager to have my comment removed from his talk page specially since I had not made any offensive or factually incorrect  comment .... a bit ironic  yes. []Intothefire 06:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Its Abulfazl
Read your comments about article Dulla Bhatti by the way I just created it with minimum information and other wikipedia community member aded worthful information to it. Another thing about the name abulfazl, Abulfazl was not only the writer of Ain-e-Akbari in history and not my name because of him but Abulfazl is the Kuniat (a type of name in arabic) of Hazrat Abbas Alamdar (A.S) the Son of Syedushuhda Imam Hussain (A.S). I just updated you because I felt as if you were mingling this name with the name of one of member of mughal darbar and taunting about an article being written about a rebellion of mughal darbar, by a person having such name. And If I took it wrong please ignore these lines.

Feel Sory
I feel sorry, it may have hurt you but I did not intended it. I hope you will ignore my act. Abulfazl 08:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject or Wikiportal Punjab?
I contacted User:DaGizza about creating a project for Punjab or possibly even a portal. He approved so I am asking more people now. The project is to be a collaborative effort between Indian Punjabi and Pakistani Punjabi and other non-Punjabi people, this should hopefully also generate good feeling between Indian and Pakistani sides.  — N o b l e e a g l e  [TALK]  [C] 09:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, see Portal:Punjab :)  — N o b l e e a g l e  [TALK]  [C] 21:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Rohtas Fort
Hi, I had deleted the WP:India tag previously added by my bot as the article seemingly has nothing to do with India. You have undone the deletion and reinstated the tag without giving any reason. Can you please let me know how the fort is connected with India? &mdash; Lost (talk) 10:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Request please explain what would constitute " related to India " in terms of the logic prevailing on wekipedia with regard to the shared heritage of India and Pakistan .The tag was not originally instated by me ,however I was surprised to see it removed . Intothefire 11:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The tag was instated by my bot. It picked up all articles within relevant categories and tagged the talk pages with the India project tag. Today while assessing, I saw that the fort has no connection to India except for perhaps its name. Hence I removed the tag. The tag simply means that the project team takes care of the maintenance of the article and hopefully helps it reach featured status. &mdash; Lost (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Your response does explain to me the technical aspect with regard to the tag ....however you do not seem to have responded to the larger question you raised viz "Can you please let me know how the fort is connected with India?" and my request thereof to you to please explain "what would constitute " related to India " in terms of the logic prevailing on wikipedia with regard to the shared heritage of India and Pakistan ", await your response Intothefire 12:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I always maintain that we should not get too caught up in the nitty-gritties of a situation. Very simply put, as a member of the India project, would you be willing to devote time on this article to make it better so that information about the article and about India is better transmitted to the wikipedia readers? If yes, go ahead and add the tag and assess it for the future editors. If not, do not add the tag. Spend your energy making another article better. Hope that explains my point of view. Do let me know if you have further questions &mdash; Lost (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Adding to my response, if an article is about a place/person who was related to India pre independence but shifted to Pakistan later on, the India tag can be added and there is a pre=yes parameter to address such situations &mdash; Lost (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
I had heard this word hussaini but really did not know whats the background thanks for informing me, and such informative knowledge information from you is always welcomed. Abulfazl 07:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Again
Again Thanks for your support but I dont how revret the table of household goods which has been corrupted by Tuncrypt. Abulfazl 08:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Quotes
LOL. If I knew about the topic I would have helped. As a reader I am saying is that there are too many quotes in section, I hope you agree to that. Wont do any harm if we move the quotes to wikiquote or possibly a new article. or the section can be turned into a narrative with few quotes and ref. At the moment the section is a quote farm by definition. --Webkami 19:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * corrected title of my comment --Webkami 19:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ibn Battuta
Can you cite any evidence of him being a slave? I did a search of the page and found the word slavery only twice (the two slavery categories). Baka man  15:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In relation to this edit. Baka man  18:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Here let me be more straightforward. I looked at the slave categories while viewing the page, I found no evidence or even mention of the word "slave" before I saw those categories. Since you quickly undid my edit, I was wondering what evidence you had to suggest Ibn Battuta was ever a slave. Baka man  14:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, but if there is an article on his writings, then that would probably be a relevant category. Baka man  19:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Dhimmi
You can find the attribution to dhimmi here and here at the site. It appears the target site has been upgraded and the links now redirect elsewhere. I can't recall which article the quote is now in, I would happily go back and fix/improve the quality of the quotations if you can remind me where you found them.

As far as dhimmis go historically society has been bigoted and stratified. The indians had their caste systems, Persia had the Aryans and non-aryans, Byzantine had greek and non-greeks, the colonials had the Europeans and the natives, similarly the Umayyads had Arab and non-arabs the list goes on. Take a society, take a history and even further take a period within that history and you will find a "superior social strata" always, especially between conquerors and subject peoples. Among Umayyads the non-arabs were further politically segregated as dhimmis on the basis of religion. What that meant differed according to the differing imperial monetary and political milieu, the definition of what constituted a "loyal citizen"; so it is a mixed bag that we can take up in a more detailed discussion if you prefer. Coming around to the last part of the argument, I would definitely prefer being a dhimmi compared to a colonial era slave and if i was an Iraqi and my nation had to have been conquered by someone I would be happier that the conquerors were the Americans and not someone else. It's all relative to the historical period. I do however agree that "granted" is an inappropriate term in this case and tender my apologies.

P.S: Assume good faith.--Tigeroo 20:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "It may indicate" is his take on the interpretation of what a singular piece of evidence, the usage of "burxan", could imply and only a precursor to two more paragraphs where he offers further supporting evidence of why he beleives that this was indeed behind the concept of "burxan". Also note that this period is the Ghaznavid Period, a couple of centuries after Qasim. From the time of Qasim through the two semi-independent arab states later this status had been institutionalized and this status which I think your query was about can be verified easily from many other sources if that is your concern. Evan as late the Mughals, Dar a shikoh is documented as considering the "upanishads" as one of the books. Reading the source and my sentence again though I see a second issue and a need to restate the sentence vis-a-vis Burxan, my earlier interpretation and understanding seems to have been a bit flawed on it's relevant import.


 * Just a pointer however, dhimmi started as a means of defining rights of the inhabitants of the state. The criteria applied for regulating citizenship was alleigance to the Islamic ideals and character of the state. i.e. "subjects who live within and are therefore protected by the state (rule of law, force of arms etc.)" but not a part of it. This itself grew from an intial tribal Arab-centric definition. The various forms of interpretation it took is a story of "social evolution" in itself defined by political, social, economic and ideological circumstances. I see no reason to defend any concepts of "social superiorities" wether based on religion, race, creed, language, ideology or sex; those we are better off growing out of in the course of social evlolution. However, it is also a natural tendency of people to "differentiate" and label among themselves wether in some manner. I am afraid looking at "social stratification" in simplistic terms such as denigration or demonization is also not adequate. Even within a monolithic and uniform society divisions are drawn; today it is "nationalism", "border controls", right-wingers left wingers and what-not so we need to be ever vigilant that our egoistic need to assume, or feel that we somehow better/ different from everyone else is carefully managed.


 * As far as the Kaffir and Momin things goes, I think it is not really a rejection of their heritage or it's acheivements, but a sense akin to that one may feel for the stone age man or a mistake you made in your past. You get enlightened and grow up and then you are better for it. Yes, it is a value judgement on the past but it's much more nuanced that the way you put it. It is equally problematic to view historical ages as some form of utopia. Afterall they were human too, prone to the same frailties and needs and prey to the same vices that the human society is continously evolving to deal with under changing conditions.


 * My apology was tendered if the sentence construction in the article and the misuse of "granted". I agree with your reasoning for it being inappropiate, that's all.--Tigeroo 08:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we have a fundamental problem with a central theme of your last post. The Kaffir and Momin was simply a statement to orient my paragraph on idiomatically and to respond to your comments on the concept you put forth vis-a-vis a view of the past heritage stated as "Day before yesterdays Kafir or Dhimmi is yesterday Momin....degenerate..demonize.." and not really oriented as a blanket equation of kaffir=caveman as you have put forth.

As for the past, yes there are mistakes that were made in the past and that I believe should not be redone today. You would not go back to monarchies, feudal lords, slavery, casteism, serfdom, de-industrialization, burning witches and what not the list goes as human society grows up. So yes, it does entail that you understand your past and gain knowledge of what they got right and what they got wrong. Learning from the mistakes of the past is important if you don't want to repeat them. If your forefathers made mistakes I think it would be extremely ignorant to repeat them. Understanding their mistakes is important as seeing what they got right. Moreover more than one of our grandfathers was indeed a caveman, and calling him that is not disrespectful. Nor is passing a value judgment on them wrong either, i.e. a lot of "grandfathers" in the sub-continent, much closer up the family tree, married really really young girls, and so no believing they were wrong would not be disrespectful either.

All of these things are unfortunately value judgments. Yes, I believe a lot of things that occurred in historical society have no place in modern society. You need of course remember that in a caveman society  using flint to start a fire was the absolutely correct way to do things. Would you do that today?? Everything is relative and needs to be accounted for in the proper social, economic, ideological and technological context.

As for ideological value judgments, we make them everyday by choosing a particular religion or even rejecting religion we are saying those who ascribe to a different set are wrong. Consciously and sub-consciously by what we choose to do we make value judgments whether it is capitalism or communism, free society or autocratic rules. Even by emigrating we are saying our country is worse than the others no matter how much nationalistic jingoism we may throw up. Making moral/value judgments is human. The difference between it and bigotry is that you have a sound reason upon which you base that decision rather than a generic disdain. I am sorry, but yes I do believe some people have got it wrong, but it would also be equally insane interpret that statement as I believe that I am perfect.

As far the Saudi, I believe they are wrong too but for a different reason than the one you imply or deduce from my previous post. Simply because by erasing the past you have erased the lessons that can be learnt from them. If it is a mistake of your past, you do not erase it. If you believe it is an improvement then that would at least be justifiable. The fundamental question and shaper of human society has always been "How do you deal with those who you do not agree with?"--Tigeroo 17:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers from a Momin back atcha.--Tigeroo 04:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Arora and Khatri
You are mistaken about my POV, see my edits again, I have been readding information about Aroras onto the page. I have also been converting links from List of Arora surnames to List of Arora surnames on Wiktionary. dishant 22:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why did you add negative portrayal of Yudhistira on Malhotra? dishant 01:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's nothing like that and Yudhistira did have a gambling problem, I was just wondering what the necessity was to add that on the Malhotra page. Anyway, since the Mahabharata is one of your favourite books, can you confirm that Yudhistira was NOT a Malhotra? dishant 23:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

==Have undone Dishant55555 revert of Intothefire edit and further rvandalism of the Malhotra page to the last NPOV version by Intothefire Dishant5555 seems to suffer from issues as he keeps vandalising that and other pages of users who correct his exaggerated claims of the Luthra family importance in Indian history== —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.149.27.200 (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Qasim
Btw, I had removed the Baladhuri comment which I believe prompted you talk about Baladhuris POV in the first place as unnecessary as well. So I hope that addresses the your concern of POV glorification. As an unrelated aside, all histories have a certain POV which is why wiki source prefer tertiary assessments to be quoted that would have hopefully removed the bias present in primary sources. Another reason why I felt the direct Baladhuri quotation initially present was inappropriate and possibly misleading.--Tigeroo 09:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh??? Suppress what?? An exposition on Baladhuri on a Qasim page?? Maybe if you explain the point of the exposition we can acheive the ends you seek, without wandering off-topic into a summary of Baladhuri's career. I assumed the point was to illustrate the POV of the glory statement that was inserted there. Such a statement didn't belong, definitely not in the section summarizing his death.
 * If you are talking about the condensation of the accounts to get to the point right away, then it is good English writing practice for such articles to place the subject right at the start and develop the details further along the paragraph. Earlier it seemed like there were three accounts instead of the two mentioned in the first line. I do not follow you at all, what is being hidden or suppressed here? I don't see it, but if you enlighten me about it we can come to a ready solution.--Tigeroo 15:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh?? First Egypt now Pakistan?? You need to stop thinking in terms of nationalistic or creed based jingo. First Baladhuri then Arabic you keep getting it wrong, check the facts and read the entire source and understand it before you make edits. Correcting your errors and educating you is just tedious but nothing to get worked up about. Life is good.--Tigeroo 21:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

case conversion
Can you justify capital letters on "clan" or "conversion"? Please use Category:Hindu clan conversions to Islam and give that category a parent category. -- RHaworth 18:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Change what? -- RHaworth 18:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok ! no problem. Now tell me how do I change thisIntothefire 18:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Babbar
Please note i have created this article from the outset with regards to the french rapper of the same name. Rather than arbitrarily edit an existing article you will need to create a new article and add a 'disambiguation' link at the top of the current Babbar article so that people looking for information on your topic will know where to go to. If you or others keep re-editing the article i have created i'll have to refer this to someone who can arbitrate. --Baston1975 08:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WP:India
 Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the India WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Please participate in any of our descendant workgroups that might interest you.
 * The project has a bimonthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered in its entirety, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every India article in Wikipedia.
 * Can you code? The automation department uses automated and semi-automated methods to perform batch tasks that would be tedious to do manually.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! &mdash; Lost (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Intofthefire
I have had busy week at work, I have had no time to deal with fixing the poor quality edits you usually make, but now it is the weekend so I will fix things. Please do read up all those links I gave you and look around for what consitutes good and quality material. Even the quality and contents of your posts on my discussion are an embarassment. P.S Another tip, when you create a new discussion wether on a article page or a user page, it makes like a lot easier to follow what is going on if you add the new content to the bottom of the page instead of inserting it at random any what where.--Tigeroo 11:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Either you have too inflated an ego if thats what you beleive or you are just yelling loud enough to try and distract attention from the shortcomings of your edit. You might even claim I am stalking you or mine and your user talk pages next!! Maybe you should scroll back the history bar on those and check, my interest in those articles predates you even beginning to post your opinions as facts on wikipedia. You didn't attribute the nursery rhyme quoted either!! Bad, bad!!--Tigeroo 09:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hamsaya
With respect, I find this article to be inappropriate and offensive to Jats and Awans. I have requested deletion for this.

In view of the haste in which it was created, I'd rather believe that perhaps the haste is the reason for this mistake and not a deliberate attempt to undermine an entire Awan community. You are also incorrect to my origins, I am not an Awan. I shouldn't have to be to take offence at what is written about another respectable tribe.

You are obviously passionate about your area of interest. What I would advise is take your time, do some proper research and try to be cohesive.

I suggest you curb your personal opinions and bias towards the Muslim community. They do not all hate their Indian counterparts or their Indian heritage! But simply stating one sided cases and articles trying to remind them of their ancient heritage does, as Malik Awan stated, ignore their current Islamic identity which they predominantly hold more dearer than their lineal identity. Try and understand this bro, and perhaps Inshallah you will help create a cohesive respectful bridge between our respective communities/nations rather than (indirectly/directly) offending them through insensitivity.

My job is to advise, whether you endeavour to aid this cohesion, or ignore this and continue is up to you my friend. God willing, you will understand for the best. Enjoy the weekend.--Raja 12:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Your latest post is quite troubled, (as I can see from your other work, but hey...) either way, I statde the rest was your decision. Eithr way, I tried.
 * Your statement that you didnt realise we work in teams I found rather confusing, but more so, sad. If it's because I gave Tigeroo a Barnstar, it was out of respect for his contributions in area that is important, rather than an opinion of him personally. The fact YOU just compacted me and whoever you thought else was included into a team, is evident of your mentality, not mine. I dont request/expect you to understand this, so in the least, considering your immature response, I request that you dont post any further accusations or ill derived opinions on my page.
 * I am still open for help regarding tribal history wherever you deem me fit and I'd like to think that you are available for the same. Personal opinions and assumptions are unproductive, but thats just my estimation, you will no doubt have your own. --Raja 20:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Alamsherkhan (talk) 13:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC) I have gone through the remarks which come from one of the editors that while population census Awan’s in some areas of NWFP are listed as "Hamsaya". Some of the editors consider it impolite word as regards to tribe. First of let us see the common meaning of Hamsaya before I explain what it mean in Pashtun community. "Ham-saya" is common term used in Pakistan for neighbour. Ham is used to explain the second word like, Ham- Rakab, Ham Zulf, Ham- Piyala, Ham-Nawa and Ham-Nasheen etc. Saya mean shadow and the word to word meaning of Hamsaya is the persons sharing same shadow. In Pashtun tribe community word Hamsaya is used in the meanings of adoption and protection. This term is used for the small group of individuals who got invited by a local tribe to work/stay in tribal Pashtun society. Simply it mean "a guest under protection". Hamsaya declaration by a tribe ensure their safety during the stay in the Area. This rule still works in all tribal areas and the news reporters and visitors mostly get benefit of this customary law. I hope this will clear the misunderstanding regards Alamsherkhan

Re:Hamsaya
Intothefire

You recently left a message for me, which I have only just read. To be honest, I am far too busy to re-engage in a debate over this issue. I made my feelings abundantly clear vis-à-vis this matter (including commenting on the source material you keep referring to in defence of your article) and if you still cannot comprehend why I, along with others, quite rightly nominated your article for deletion, then so be it.

As for the analogies you provided, they bear no relevance to the points I made. And as for your desire to record "the Hamsaya practice" the "practice" you refer to is no longer practiced as was outlined by your article (and this has been the case for quite some time now). Furthermore, the groups that your article referred to have not been addressed as Hamsaya (an appellation rooted in ignorance and prejudice) in the NWFP for a considerable period of time. In fact, presently, Awans in the NWFP are widely referred to as Qazi by the Pathan community, something that I observed during my stay in the NWFP.

You say that you did not set out to cause offence - I am willing to accept that. However, your article was also erroneous - particularly in allusion to Awans residing in regions of the Punjab bordering the NWFP - and highly problematic (and I don't have time to go into this again. Suffice to say, I along with others also pointed out that defining the term Hamsaya would realistically involve including the actual, widely used and innocuous, Hindi-Urdu definitions of this term, which in itself throws up problems).

By the way, if you have carefully read through comments I have made elsewhere, you will discover that I am not amongst those of Pakistani origin who denigrate or stereotype the Hindu community, nor do I have a problem conceding that the majority of Pakistanis, including those who ancestors arrived in the Subcontinent from Arabia and Persia, can to varying degrees, trace their ancestry back to individuals who professed Hinduism.

Of course, there are just as many individuals in India who create crude stereotypes regarding the Muslim community as there are Pakistanis who indulge in negatively stereotyping the Hindu community.

I have nothing more to say on this subject. Malik Awan 1 03:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi
See my reply on the Bomba dynasty. I agree, co operation is best. Let's hope this begins a better relationship dude. I dont bare any grudge against you, if anything, I want people from both sides of our countries to appreciate each other better, perhaps through this sites info we can. But we must follow rules etc, and hopefully, Inshallah we will get there. Until then, good luck mate.--Raja 15:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not interesting in your Political motives (which I might add are becoming increasing apparent, so much for my blind trust in your words...) but what I do care about is your misrepresentation of Muslim tribes. You never answer any questions to your assertions and yet, you continue to make them? It's up to you, if you want to work together in a neutral way, I am up for it. If not, dont expect me or any other users to sit back and watch you pretty vandalise pages with nonsensical POV original research. --Raja 13:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply
Hahaha! I really liked the "ai rokom cholba na!!" bit. Hehe...nice. Nice to meet you.

Regarding the removal of cuisine section in Delhi, the article follows WikiProject Indian cities and WikiProject Indian states. Both the projects have acted as effective guidelines for producing multiple Featured Article.The guidelines suggest to incorporate culinary specialties/notabilities within the Culture section.

Delhi is also a featured article. Any major changes in a featured article should first be discussed in the talk page of the article, per the general norms in wikipedia (no rule though). So I reverted your additions. Basically if cuisine of Delhi (or' for that matter any state or city) is discussed in a separate section, many other topic deserve similar other devoted sections. As a consequence, the article would become huge. Wikipedia, in general, follows Summary style. Have a read of it. Let's rather try to build up nice daughter articles, and provide links in the main article. For example, Indian cuisine can be considered as a daughter article of India! Hope this clears things. Cheers.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment
I saw you complain on the talk pg about me removing the word terrorist and replacing it with militant. See this policy WP:TERRORIST. IP198 18:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:WQA alert
Hello User:Intothefire. I have responded to the alert placed by User:Tigeroo placed at WP:WQA. My response can be found here. I hope you will take what I say under advisement and will ask me any questions you might have. Sarcasticidealist 19:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Your password
I'm not a technical expert, but I suspect that either somebody else made the edit from the same computer that you've been using (while you were still logged in) or your password has been somehow compromised. I'd suggest you bring the issue to the Help desk; there should be someone there who can answer your question better than I can.

In the meantime, I've reverted the edit. Sarcasticidealist 18:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Trouble at MbQ
I'm sorry you have to deal with that kind of treatment. Don't give up defending appropriate content. Arrow740 05:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletions by Tigeroo on article Muhammad bin Qasim
Your protection banner on this article was till the 22nd ....on the 23 when it was removed there were blanket deletions by user Tigeroo again. This blanket deletions of sourced content by Tigeroo has been going on for months ...I have been making efforts at concensus building on the talk page ...how is this deletion by Tigeroo going to stop ....what is the next step ?? Please advise. Cheers Intothefire 05:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to take a wait-and-see approach with this. I would not be surprised if the article needs to be protected again. --  tariq abjotu  03:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Khatri
Just want to let you know that IP struck again:. I reverted it already. Is there some sort of dispute there? - Warthog Demon  01:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case I'll watch the page for awhile. :) - Warthog Demon  20:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What about this edit?. - Warthog Demon  20:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply
Thanks for dropping by. First of all I'm happy to inform you that I am not the mysterious ip User:70.174.180.38. I am not new to Wikepedia and my edits in the Kshatriya articles are documented under this name if not Maharaj Devraj, I did not agree with the way Khatri was put into the Suryavanshi section, so I removed the demeaning comments but I did not remove the Khatri link out of the section, check in the history. Besides, I do not edit articles which I do not have any knowledge upon and if I disagree with what is written in an article I would discuss it rather than vandalize. For that reason, I have removed your reference to my name in the page of your friend User:70.174.180.38. By the way, where then should Khatri be placed in the Kshatriya article, Suryavansh or not I personally do not know, or under Other Kshatriya tribes perhaps?? it would be great if you could look into it and fix the page for what is most appropriate. Checking from his contributions I would guess that User:70.174.180.38 is a Khatri himself, as for myself I am a Kachwaha Raja, not Maharaja as you have suggested, that would be my uncle. Cheers. Devraj Singh 03:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

well its not entirely trash it holds some little truth, but the point i want to make is you and others would be quick to shoot down my edit but what about this bloated, falsely boastful article(jat) with some false references(how low), the incredible length, and some false facts, will those be corrected? the articles already not credible, so comments like mine wont look too out of the ordinary there.

cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.222.155 (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Do let me know what needs to be corrected and what false facts you refer to? If there is any thing in an article that is not correct than it should be 1.) addressed, 2.) discussed and 3.) corrected!! (That’s the whole point about wikipedia).  So if you find an article in wikipedia to be unjust than please raise your objections, point by point.  If it is an article which I am associated with than I can assure you that all facts which I put in to wikipedia can be verified, if it deals with ancient history than it is put under 'Legend', I have my fair-share of academia decency.  Being an amateur historian myself, I hope you do your readings prior to raising some protests on issues of which you are not familiar with.

Regarding the length of the articles, with the number of wiki articles, there are articles of variable lengths, some are long and some are short, depending on the details and facts that could (or has) been put into it. Rest assured.

May be the reason people are quick to shoot down your edits is because you haven't registered, and that is at times seen as vandalizing, perhaps you could start by registering yourself. Devraj Singh 05:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Panjabi wikipedia
Ever considered contributing to Panjabi wikipedia?--Eukesh (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Dewan Mokham Chand
"No Citation" tag has been removed from this page as per your request. Thank-you for adding them and making it a better article. --Pmedema (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

IP edits
Hello,

In reply to your question, no I do not post under 90.196.190.207, why do you ask anyway? :-)

Pahari Sahib, 16:22, 1 January 2008 (GMT)

Well in answer to your question, I would agree that "cited contributions are better than deletions of cited content", Happy New Year to you too.

Pahari Sahib, 16:44, 1 January 2008 (GMT)

Re: Awan page
I have just seen your note on my talk page, yeah this guy actually IS serious.... after all it is Talagang, feel free to revert my edit if you want, I agree to this - we have consensus :-)

We should have something of comedic quality on the page :-)

Pahari Sahib (talk) 08:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Pirooz
I have reverted your re-addition of the erroneous material to Pirooz. That material is actually about Peroz I. Please see my comments on Talk:Pirooz. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 06:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed the unrelated material that you added to the talk page. As I stated before, that material is about Peroz I and not Pirooz II. I will continue to delete any material unrelated to Pirooz II. This is not an edit war. Peroz I was the son of Yazdgird II and Pirooz II was the son of Yazdgird III. You are mixing one up one for the other.


 * You do not have to add a new thread each time something happens. Just continue the discussion under your original post. Please see Wp:Talk page. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry If I came off as rude, but you continued to re-add material even after I provided proof that it was placed on the wrong page. I changed the title of the page to avoid further confusion. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Punjab Chiefs
I have nominated the article for deletion. you can comment here. Noor Aalam (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Punjab Chiefs
An editor has nominated Punjab Chiefs, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Kakkezai are NOT Punjabi_Shaikh.
With all due respect, I have noticed that you are trying to portray that Kakkezai are Punjabi_Shaikh by using a quote from Denzil Ibbetson, Edward MacLagan, H. A. Rose, "A Glossary of The Tribes & Casts of The Punjab & North West Frontier Province", 1911, pp 502 Vol II. Here is the direct link to that pageKakazai Pashtun descent. I find it interesting that you are NOT pointing to the confusion of Denzil Ibbetson which he has outlined under a footnote, "Mackenzi says the Kakkezai are also called Bulledee (Bileladle) but he does not explain the term. Gujrat Sett. Rep., p. 27. Bulledee may be transliteration of Baledi 'one who herds oxen': Pujnabi Dicty., p. 86". Should you be able to read Urdu, then please feel welcome to read these pages, Page 176-177, Page 178-179 and Page 18-181 of Tazkara (also called "Tazkira-e-pathan"), a book by Khan Roshan Khan.

As far as the matter of Kakkezai being Punjabi_Shakih is concerned, I would like to further invite you to get hold on another book in Urdu, "Tareekh-e-Kakazai" (a.k.a. "Hidayat Afghani - Tareekh-e-Kakazai Tarkani" (Originally Published May, 1933), which debunks that theory. And last but NOT the least, you are more than welcome to visit more material on Kakazai Pashtun tribe by visiting this Flickr page, which is full of scanned material. McKhan (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your kind response. However, with all due respect and apology, what I gather from having Kakkezaion Wikipedia along-with Kakazai that there is an attempt being made to prop up the Pujanbi_Shaikh clan which, I am afraid, also goes against the spirit of Wikipedia guidelines. I did not blank the Kakkezai page (Please, feel welcome to review the history.) but simply redirected it to Kakazai as that page is simply causing confusion for Wikipedia readers by creating an impression that there is a difference between Kakkezai and Kakazai NOT only in spellings but also in their ancestory. I would like to reiterate that I am Kakazai by myself and I have done quite an extensive research on the topic of Kakazai. The quote which is being used is a disputed quote under the light of "Tareekh-e-Kakazai" (a.k.a. "Hidayat Afghani - Tareekh-e-Kakazai) Tarkani" (Originally Published May, 1933) as well as pages, Page 176-177,

Page 178-179 and Page 18-181 of Tazkara (also called "Tazkira-e-pathan"), a book by Khan Roshan Khan. The writer of "Tareekh-e-Kakazai" (a.k.a. "Hidayat Afghani - Tareekh-e-Kakazai) Tarkani" (Originally Published May, 1933) has addressed the quote which is being used on this page quite thoroughly. Indeed, I appreciate your contention, however, I find it unfair to treat quotes written by the Western authors as authentic quotes compare to the books written by the authentic / native historians of the region on the relevant / pertinet subject matters. I, sincerely, hope that you will kindly think about it. Best regards. Sincerely, McKhan (talk) 08:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Categories
I noticed that in many articles in question the category Category:History of Pakistan has been deliberately replaced by Category:Pre-Islamic heritage of Pakistan. I don't find the categories for Pre-Christan heritage of Italy, Greece, France, Germany, Russia, Spain, etc. Their historical articles fall in their respective history categories. The Category:Hindu history and Category:Ancient Greeks in Asia were probably a mistake I will go back and check my changes. The Muslim heritage places in India such as Bareilly, where Barelwi sect was formed which is followed by 50% of Pakistani Muslims or Deoband of Deobandi sect, and Ajmer which is the biggest Muslim pilgrame site in India of Moinuddin Chishti does not have any Muslim tags. Actually I support this since cities should not have any religious tags unless they are exlusively pilgramage sites. We cannot have tags in small towns or villages in Pakistan if they had Hindu or Sikh population before 1947. Then over 50% of Pakistani cities and towns will have these tags. Then we should also be adding tags in Indian towns an villages that have Muslims before 1947. Lets work together to resove this issue. Misaq Rabab (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Tanoli
I see you have been putting in the references that I myself had added years ago to this article. In truth, the tribe has even been mentioned as Janjua rajput in origin too lol (I even have the sources!) but some really lame and extremist editors keep removing it....

It's good your working to enhance this part of the tribe's knowledge. I may have argued with you in the past, but I am glad someone is keeping some part of history of any tribe there.

Keep it up dude.

--~Raja~ (talk) 11:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you stopped making baseless accusations.
Hi, there. I understand your concern with the Cheema article. However, all of contributions to the article are cited as there was a dispute with another user who is now banned, so for that reason I specifically made sure by sources were credible and backed up. Therefore, I find it inappropriate for you to leave baseless accusations against me on my page. Unfortunately, from the time I last edited the article to looking at it today. I understand there are huge problems with the article, as all sorts of useless information is added to the article, generally under the modern subheading. However, as I don't edit much, rather being making baseless accusations against me, why not try to improve the article? Its nonsensical to leave a few comments on my talk page accusing me of something which one you can't backup and two you don't have any evidance of. --Street Scholar (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

3swordzreply
You left me a message a while back whining about bias. Care to elaborate?

"Bias" is actually having a reputation for crappy edits and a Hindutva slant, which your talk page is flooded with complaints about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3swordz (talk • contribs) 10:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

THere is a lot of bias on wikipedia see for example groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/alt.wikipedia/-2O2zOBni1Q — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kegsapter (talk • contribs) 16:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Your comment
I believe if you would consult this page, you will get your answers about any sources of information, contentious, questionable or not. --Shanti bhai (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Shanti Bhai
Firstly are you same as user 3swordz.I have good reason to believe this may be the case, as there are blaring simmalirities and anomalies in your and 3wordz posts for example in your reply to me and the heading of the response
 * No, you are absolutely wrong.

Next moving to the main issue Why did you delete my post of 14th September from your talk page? a)Your deletion of my courteous post is astonishing and unmerited. as it specifically pertains to discuss with you - your insertion of citation request tags on 15 articles. Such as wikipedia articles on Parmara, Bhera ,Sabharwal , Khawaja Shaikh ,Kukhran ,Sikh Rajput ,Khatri , Suri ,Saini …
 * No, if you have a look below, it pertains to ask me specific questions regarding middle eastern sources, which I have provided a wiki link for you to consult and understand. I do not make wiki policies, I try to follow them. I apologise if you were offended at not recieving a more detailed reply, my work load has been somewhat strong hence I thought it best to not ignore and at least leave a quick reply. YOu have totally taken this the wrong way and I find that insulting. You also have no right to tell me what I can keep or delete from MY OWN TALK PAGE. That is my prerogative, not yours user:intothefire.

b)It is also paradoxical that considering your zealous labors to tag citation requests on scores of articles accompanied often by sardonic comments you have hardly posted any cited content yourself on any article??
 * That is incorrect, because all users are encouraged to challenge uncited info and claims. I have done my duty. I have also contributed to Ibbetson's info from Punjab Castes on Saini page and cited numerous other sources for the claims there. I also tidied up sections of the Sikh Rajputs article, the Parmar article (though citations tags were added for the article's betterment). You are stalking me and also making incited propoganda claims on your articles also. Loking at your edits, you have been putting Ibbetson's work all over tribes history pages. But If I did so, it is wrong? This is not done....

c)why you have even nominated an article for deletion on Sikh Rajput and are ardently discussing to have this article deleted and yet delete discussion on your own page ?
 * This is incorrect, I nominated the article for COMMENTS, NOT DELETION. That deletion tag was later requested by user:Mspraveen and user:Roadahead. If you read the AFD comments page, I recommended a keep for the article and even worked to tidy it up and format it to it's present wiki friendly content today. I also gave a Barnstar to the Consensus lead for keeping the article and not deleting it, despite the heat surrrounding it. I cleaned up the articles negative propoganda, which despite tags for over one year were never sourced, and hence warranted immediate clean up of the info. So please get your facts right.

Lets look at my post you have deleted from your talk page again.

As you have put the citation tags on scores of articles, it behoves you to discuss this and that this discussion is important for the reason and I am recording the sequence of posts here to put the matter in its perspective.
 * I believe it is because you are wiki stalking me. According to your own talk page it appears you do this alot.

[edit] Intothefire post 1 of 14th September deleted by Shant bhai Hi Shanti Bhai You seem to be an old hand at Wikipedia, and remind me of another editor ! I would like to add a few citations where you have put citation needed] tags.

As Even citations can be a contentious issue on wikipedia, so before I add them and inadvertently end up in an edit war with you. I thought I would check your views on this. a)Do you agree that medieval writers such as Farishta, and Al beruni , Ibn Batuta , Barani are fit cases for citations . Would appreciate your non ambiguous statement of position.

b)Do you completely reject recording oral tradition on Wikipedia as bogus, if yes would you apply the same standard to religious articles as well such as Hadith . Cheers Intothefire (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Your response posted on my page is completely non specific to questions I asked you, I have recorded your post here for ease of discussion

Shant bhai respone on my page: I believe if you would consult this page, you will get your answers [1] about any sources of information, contentious, questionable or not. --Shanti bhai (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Shanti bhai your answer does not respond to either of my specific question (a) or (b)in my first post you deleted.
 * If you see above, you can see you are wrong on the above allegations, you asked specifically about those sources and not my edits (I havent changed any info or deleted info regarding cited material at all on Wikipedia.)


 * Secondly, my talk page is my domain and I am more at right to delete and put up what content I see fit. YOu have no right to question what I delete and put up on my talk page. You have no right to tell me what to do to my own talk page.

Next many of your citation requests or or tags are faulty and highly selective and I will specifically come to this once you begin to engage in this discussion without deletion or indistinct responses. Intothefire (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shanti_bhai"


 * I am not interested in getting into personal attacks which I believe you are engaging in. Engage with me regarding the work I have done, on the articles I have editted on their talk pages rather than with me here.


 * My last iteration; I have every right to challenge misleading material that doesnt cite either it's sources, or appears to be POV propoganda. Any further disputes, again, raise them at the talk pages.--Shanti bhai (talk) 09:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

3swordzreply2
Intothefire, You're littering my talk page with crap again, man.

I think you're just another Hindu trying to subvert Sikh names and identity under your RSS crap. I'm sick of your type swarming Wikipedia.

There is no difference between Hindu Punjabi or any other type of Hindu. Your type needs to move to Haryana and stop dictating Punjab's culture as you see fit.

I am a full Punjabi Jatt Sikh, as a matter of fact. You don't know me, so don't insult me or my identity. I am not "harjit1979" or "shantibhai". I'm sure you or one of you Hindu techie friends can verify that in one way or another.

1. I never touched the "Hanjra" article. I do not know enough about them to alter anything.

2. As for the "Cheema" article, perhaps harjit 1979 and I feel similarly about this issue: Hindu mythology has no place being the bulk of an encyclopedic clan history, and being cited by questionable sources doesn't add to its authenticity. What he deleted was neither cited nor even written in a professional manner. It started with "They say that some 25 generations back their ancestor Chima...," for goodness' sake. You're really going to defend this? Facts matter, my friend, not fairy tales and hearsay.

And Jatt clans do not have specific Hindu-like rituals based solely on their last names, that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

I mean, "Cheemas of Sialkot district have, in common with the Sindhu and Shahi of these parts, some peculiar marriage customs, such as cutting a goat's ear and marking their foreheads with the blood, making the bridegroom cut off a twig of jhand tree (Prosopis spicigera) and so forth.. " Cheemas of Gujranwala district have similar marriage customs which involves making the bride cut off a twig of "jhand" tree, followed by paying a visit to local "Peer"'s or "Jathera"s (elders) shrine.

What the hell was that? Look at the damn source, it talks about the NWFP, Pirs, Gujranwala, Sialkot. Pakistan! Maybe these are Muslim rituals of the Pashtuns (NWFP) and Pakistani Punjabis, but they sure as hell aren't specifically Sikh or clan rituals. Even if the quote wasn't written by some ignorant white "spectator," you still couldn't mistake it for a blanket statement unless you just saw the word "Cheema" and ran with it. Look at the damn context.

And I've never seen a Hindu Cheema in person or in name in my entire life; their numbers are inconsequential if not nonexistent. Even among Muslim Jatts their numbers are few and far between. So prove me wrong. And for the record, I'm not a Cheema. That's not the only Jatt article that I corrected.

And again, your talk page is filled with nothing but complaints. Only you seem have an issue with my edits; I am very able to admit mistakes, but inane posts not worth my time get deleted.

So if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go clear the crap off my talk page again. "Cheers."

3swordz (talk) 11:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

PS I'm not sure how you could think I wasn't a Sikh, if you look at my contributions.

WikiProject Pakistan
WikiProject Pakistan Newsletter Shi'a-Sunni sectarianism! What next? Wikipedia has always had its fair share of disputes. The issues surrounding debates like creationism-evolutionism had been a source of many edit wars. But recently enough, the ball-of-chaos had landed in our very own court. Pakistani issues are now polluted with a new sectarianism, especially the biographical articles celebrating some of the most influential people in Pakistani politics. These edit wars annoyed administrators who had no idea how the problems should be dealt with. Instances of religious inclination (either Shi'a Islam or Sunni Islam) were changed from one or the other. Debates have kicked off on the WP Pakistan talk page. Recently enough, a new policy has come into discussion (actually, it's just a set of rules) that defines major guidlines for such issues. It now awaits votes from all Pakistani editors. In other news: Akhtar Hameed Khan has finally reached the FA status and Islescape is the happiest person on Earth.

WikiProject India Newsletter Volume III, Issue no. 001 - June 2008
This newsletter is automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 06:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:PAK Newsletter


10:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Beauties and PR If you were lucky enough to watch that episode on Nadia Khan's show on Geo TV where Sonia Ahmed and Mahleej Sarkari were invited, you'd know that the Miss Pakistan World pageant is really the hype. At least, when it comes to controversies, the organiser know where to bring the PR campaign. Their serious POV edits which have been proven to be made by the organisers and associates of the pageant are under debate at the article's deletion debate.

Follow-up on the last issue In the last issue, we discussed about the sectarian issues that Pakistani articles were prone to. For an update, an advocate of the Shi'a faith and its prominent inclusion into the articles, LahoreKid has been banned for an indefinite period. In the process, a citation review project page was created for providing editors with a third-opinion on vague references.

For a in-depth coverage, read the talks here. Some news issues will be addressed shortly and new activities like contests and quizzes would be announced shortly as well

Talking of sects... I don't want to sound like a separatist, if I say that for the past few weeks the highest number of edits on anything related to Pakistan have been on articles that concerned Baluchistan. From major editions to the article on Quetta to the 1935 Balochistan earthquake tragedy.

In other news: It is now important for editors to look into the logistics section for gaining or providing support for various things in the article such as graphics or copy-editing. So, if you need copy-editing of an article, or your article lacks a picture, please consult at this page.

i-post
Email to Postal Mail

A convenient free postal mail service which can deliver email messages all over Pakistan. Peoples can now use their email to send letters giving you another route to communicate with others who are not connected to the Internet in Pakistan.

In recent past Internet and e-mail have revolutionized the world of communications. But those who do not have easy access to Internet and e-mail facilities could not get benefits of this facility. In its endeavour to make the benefits of e-mail available to a common man, Al Tayyeb Group has introduced i-post service. By i-post all those who do not have computer or do not have access to Internet can send e-mail by Post Office or receive e-mail through a postman. Those who have access to Internet can also send i-post to those who do not have access to Internet.

Wikipedia should have an article on this social service & must be a part of WikiProject Pakistan.Please comments. --SaqibChaudhry (talk) 09:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Concerning Kshatriya
Its nothing personal. Its just a troll who initially kept placing the community in the article. I have contributed significantly towards the article previously, but I tend to believe in EB over some opportunistic troll who tries to make his community look better on WP. That is not without precedent. I assure you to check the references again. All sentences can be found, in fact I can find more references rather easily if prompted. Have a good day. Trips (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Abusive message from anonymous ip 129.98.225.64
you are a biased, a-hole person who needs to stop editing pages that have nothing to do with your people or lineage. I think you are psychotic and have nothing better to do with your life than to ruin other peoples' history. Kill yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.225.64 (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a very uncivil and rude message . I have reason to believe that it is posted from the same person who has been deleting cited content (from verifiable sources) from the  Kukhran article pertaining to Muslim Kukhrans. It has vandaled the Kukhran article using the following other ips lsted in the table below  as well.

For example see how this vandal ip deleted an entire section on 8th November

Intothefire (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Khatri/Kshatriya articles
The article start with "In Punjab region the local Kshatriya are known as Khatri, in fact they are one and the same.". If they are on and the same, and Khatri is just a different pronunciation, why do the two have different articles? Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Good question ,since I dident start either of the articles I do not have an emphatic response.

Cheers Intothefire (talk) 08:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * One good reason for having different articles could be that the term Kshatriya includes many sub-communities although within Hinduism ,but belonging to different linguistic, geographical , cultural groups.
 * Then again within a confined geograpical area there could be more than one Kshatriya community,as in the Punjab.
 * Further there are many Kshatriya communityes in Hinduism ,all Kshatriyas are not Khatri(from Punjab or other northern regions of South Asia.
 * Therefore it does seem to make sense to have two articles, you could offcourse consult other wikipedians who contribute to these articles as well for their take on your question.
 * Lastly in your edits to the Khatri article you have also completely removed cited content from verifiable sources .This is incorrect, as also the introduction of tags on some content.

3swordzreply3
Listen up, intothefire. You only whine about my deleting of worthless posts on my talk page (which I HAVE CONTROL OVER) because you have nothing constructive to say about the Cheema article. I already put forth my discussion on your TALK page a long time ago, and you haven't responded to the claims. You pick and choose which articles to respond to. My Cheema discussion page post but not your talk page post? I've made my case. You haven't responded. I've also noticed that you haven't been disrupting the Cheema article as of late. Perhaps you know you're wrong.

-You demand sources but didn't seem to care about using them when you sloppily claimed that Cheemas were also Hindus on July 11 2008, along with other unsourced amateurish claims.

-I never delete sourced material. You seem to be implying this by means of incorrectly associating me to other users who have done this and making them my "sockpuppets." What need do I have for sockpuppets? It is simply that more people see through your lies than you want to come to terms with, and it's not only one user under multiple names. You're paranoid as well as ignorant, not a good combo.

-Don't make idiotic claims on articles, and baseless insinuations about sockpuppets, and start inane arguments that you can't win, and maybe I won't be "abusive," if your delicate feelings and pseudointellectual sensibilities are so easily hurt.

-MY talk page. I have full control of it. You complain about the same things over and over, and never respond to my discussions on your talk page. Stop ignoring my posts, and you will get your answers and why you are wrong.

"Cheers," my little Hindu friend.3swordz (talk) 10:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Tigeroo
I have asked him to explain himself ... only because it seems you haven't attempted to discuss it with him before going to me. If he does not respond to my satisfaction or continues the editing, then the indefinite block will be reimposed (you can refer another admin to this post if I'm not available). Daniel Case (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Shahi Dynasty
For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. You can do this by listing the parents near the bottom of the page, each enclosed in double brackets like so:

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Maharaja Ranjit Singh's Generals
I saw no reason for an article on Ranjit Singh's generals. There's no context for having a separate article and it quite clearly looks like an indiscriminate collection of information. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Lohani
Hello and [Cheers]. Please create the page as desired by you. Please feel free to request. I saw the message after some gap due to my work related assignments, hence the delay. Regards. --Bhadani (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: Vandal edits
I made a request at WP:RFPP to see if the page can be protected for a little while. Momo san Gespräch 13:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Protected for 3 days by User:Kralizec!. Momo san  Gespräch 15:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

good job...
Intothefire, though I have not always agreed with you in the past on certain aspects on the Khatri page, I appreciate the effort you took to post and call out all the bogus IP addresses. Hopefully, we can have the Khatri page blocked from all IP addresses not using a username. Cheers! --KhatriNYC (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Mahmud of Ghazna
Please stop posting unrelated and Bloated material that meets your POV in the above article and then claiming it to be a vandal edit when it is removed Talk:Mahmud_of_Ghazna.

Please refer to NPOV_tutorial

Khokhar (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

Just wanted to say sorry about the other day, things got a little heated.

Khokhar (talk) 06:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Article Khatri
Yeah, but that will defeat the purpose, right? This shouldn't really qualify as a contentious enough topic for edit locking? I guess best would be for someone to go back here and spend time cleaning up, every once in a while. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Afghan (name)
Hi Intothefire, I have changed the Afghan (name) article. Check out the current version.  Massa Getae  (talk)  07:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject India Newsletter, Volume IV, Issue 1 – June 2009
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter is automatically delivered by --  Tinu  Cherian BOT  - 11:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of Punjabi grammar
Please help at Reference desk/Language by explaining some basic Punjabi grammar. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Afghans
Hi Intothefire. I have reverted your latest edit in Afghan (name), because the information was already in the text (2 paragraphs below your edit). It would have been a double entry. Regards. Tajik (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to your comments on the Gandhara article on my Talk Page
Hi again!

I don't know whether there is a policy that primary or secondary sources are preferred in the Wikipedia, but, in very general terms, I believe it is preferable to go to the original source to be sure the information is accurate.

The quote you gave was:


 * "According to Al Beruni, the armies of Ghazni carried fire and sword in Gandhara . The persecution of Gandhara caused irrepairable damage to Indian religions in this region . The ruins of cities ,temples , manastries , etc bear witness to these acts of vandalism . After its conquest by the Ghaznavids , Gandhara , an overwhelming majority of its population embraced Islam."

This quoted text is badly punctuated and difficult to follow and contains many grammatical and spelling errors, while the final sentence does not make sense. Further, in the previous sentence, the word monasteries is so badly misspelled ("manastries ") that a reader without a very good command of English might not even know what it was meant to represent (and would not be able to check it in a dictionary).

It was partly for these reasons that I replaced that quote with a much clearer quote from Al Biruni himself. While he does not mention Gandhara specifically, the statement was was made referring to Mahmud's invasion and conquest of northwestern India which, as we know, included Gandhara. I can see no difficulty here.

Finally, seeing as you ask, I am "just another wikipedian", not an editor - but if I were an editor why would you, on that basis alone, accept my changes if you thought they were wrong? Are we not trying to make this article as factual and clear as we can? Please let me know if you still disagree and, if so, why. Yours sincerely, John Hill (talk) 11:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi John Hill Please restrict this discussion only to one talk page and not three ,viz: the Gandhara talk page, your talk page and my talk page. I have now aggregated it all on Talk:Gandhara. Intothefire (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bagga
A tag has been placed on Bagga, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Beehold (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject India Newsletter, Volume IV, Issue 2 – July 2009
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. Delivered automatically by --  Tinu  Cherian BOT  - 15:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Hello Intothefire. Iam KJTRGKL. I recently joinded the wikipedia 2 or 3 days ago.Iam the cousin of user:msnanda who recently left the wikipedia because of your annoying and scolding behaivour. Now i Just want to talk about Khatris. Listen, i just want to tell you really God Promise, Khatris are rrelated to Jats, Tarkhans, Rajputs, Lohars, Gujjars, Kambojas, Sansis, etc. . look at me my surname Dhillon and I am a Khatri. Because Dhillon is a Jat surname. I think you are going to get confused. Now listen, KhatriNYC wrote everything rudely to my cousin brother, so he decided not use wikipedia.Man this user is very energetic. He is still at the point to prove that Khatris are related to Arora-Ahluwalia tribe. This user also writes that Khatris intermarry themselves with Aroras and that is why Khatris are related to Arora-Ahluwalia. I agree with his point that Khatris intermarry themselves with Arora-Ahluwalia tribe but that doesn't mean that Khatris are closely related Arora-Ahluwalia tribe. The reason, I tell you Khatris are of Indo-Scythian origin. I read this somewhere in a book telling about history, ancestry and origins of Punjabi tribes.It was also written that Khatris also have genetic, ancestral and ethnic relations with Punjabi tribes of Rajputs, Jats, Tarkhans, Lohars, Gujjars, and Kambojas. This clearly proves that Khatris are of Kshaitrya and Indo-Scythian origin  .And also these 7 tribes had common ancestors through generations. But few Emigrated from siberia into India than into different parts of the country. Due to their migration to different parts of the country from 300 BC 1400 AD, various people of Indo-Scythian (who came from Siberia and Eastern Europe) tribe got their names on the basis of their occupations. Those who Became :-


 * Merchants - Khatris
 * Agriculturists - Jats
 * Iron workers - Lohars
 * Milkmen - Gujjars
 * Factory Workers - Kambojas
 * Soldiers and Royalty - Rajputs
 * Woodworkers - Tarkhans (Ramgarhia)

The surnames are common of these 7 tribes.

Later in 1600 AD Aroras (including Ahluwalias) came from came from Iranian plateau, a region of Middle East. During that time, This tribes was an Indigenous tribe. They Later immigrated to Northern India. During Mughal peroid Khatris were mainly concerntrated in West and East Punjab. But they were given orders to go to Delhi (where Aroras were and still are mainly concerntrated In Delhi) to save Aroras from the tortures of Mughals because the seven tribes were once Warriors .Since then Khatris started living in Delhi but now also they are mostly found in East Punjab and West Punjab than Delhi. Khatris are 40% Sikhs, 30% Hindus and 30% Muslims. That is why they intermarry themselves with Arora-Ahluwalia who are moslty found in Delhi. But Khatris have an old tradition of Intermarrying themselves with the people of these 7 tribes. So please user:intothefire i requset you to response. --KJTRGKL (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Hitro  talk  13:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Khokhar Article
Hi intothefire, could you please have another look at the Khokhar article as there is an on going debate on the talk page which is becoming increasing ridiculous, as an active contributor to the article your views on the matter would be appreciated. Regards. Khokhar (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism of Khatri article by KhatriNYC
Please watch out for vandalism by KhatriNYC (you can be fairly sure that he is neither a Khatri, nor someone familiar with Khatri heritage). He has been inserting frivolus and bogus information, and deleting carefully added information from the article.ISKapoor (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Kuhkrain
Done, and copyvios removed. Thanks, happy editing to you. Keegan (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"Vanniyars" (Vanniyakula Kshatriya, Agnikula Kshatriya) are not Kshatriyas
Vanniyars are not at all Kshatriyas, they're a low, backward class. They were confered the MBC (Most Backward Class) status in   TamilNadu. How can they claim Kshatriya status without any historical proof. They are just vandalizing Kshatriya wikipedia page. Kshatriyas were Kings, Nobles/Landlords, Army chieftains... Vanniyars were none of these, they were agricultural labours. Vanniyars (which is not even a caste but a community of castes) constitute around 30/40 percent of the whole tamil population. It would mean that 30/40% of tamils have noble origins ??!!... What a nonsense!!... Please see this link: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FRIENDS_of_UP/message/1544 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.46.96.182 (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see also this link if you don't still believe me:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ppbkEJAEVCIC&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=vanniyars+low+caste&source=bl&ots=_34TaHb8RK&sig=cSKxSvpc3HkgdToO7YjA1z4d-RM&hl=en&ei=VwsdS8DiGdrOjAf21PiKBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=vanniyars%20low%20caste&f=false The everyday politics of labour: working lives in India's informal economy By Geert de Neve page 77. Vanniyars are labours, shudras, it is 100% sure. I'm not vandal. Those who add Vanniyars as kshatriyas are the real vandals. You must prevent them from editing ksahtriya wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.46.96.182 (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there any possibility to protect Kshatriya wikipedia page from these vandals ? 90.46.96.182 (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
warrior 4321  17:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Sohan Lal Suri
Where is Sohan Lal Suri cited in the Wikipedia? You may respond here. --Bejnar (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Important people can be placed back in the list when they have an article, or when they have a citation to an independent reliable published source that establishes their notability. For example, the citation you gave for Sohan Lal Suri indicated that he chronicled an important historical document on the life and times of Maharaja Ranjit Singh; however, it is not an independent source, since it is the introduction to the work in question. So far as I can tell, the work is what is important, rather than the man.  Several sources indicate that he was a diarist, rather than a true historian, employed by Maharaja Ranjit Singh to write a day to day diary. See, e.g. Proceedings - Punjab History Conference‎ - Page 63  One example of a citation that establishes notability is an entire academic article or book that is devoted to the man, rather than to one of his works, such as   Gardiner, Clinton Harvey (1969) William Hickling Prescott: A Biography University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas, ISBN 0-292-70005-9. Remember that notability must be established.  It is possible that might qualify under the  standard for academics as the author of a highly cited academic work; however, the sources seem to indicate that the Umdat Ut Tawarikh was not an academic work, and needs to be read in the context of a political document. --Bejnar (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-notables on disambiguation pages
On the issue of leaving non-notable people on the list, if they have an article but are not apparently notable, the proper procedure is to prod them or to go through an articles for deletion procedure. Did you have anyone in particular in mind? --Bejnar (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

References on talk pages
It is not generally a good idea to use the footnoting format for references on a talk page. They can get lost in a number of ways. It is better to put them as parenthetical notes. That keeps the comment together and the notes separated from anyone else's footnotes. If you want to put them below the body of the comment, put them directly there without using the ref tags. --Bejnar (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Template History of Afghanistan
Hi, Actually, in the Template, it is meant the first period of the Kabul Shahi dynasty. The first dynasty of Kabul Shahi is also known as Ratbel-Shahan, which ruled parts of Afghanistan between 565 CE to 670 CE with Kapisa, Kabul and Kandahar as their capitals. However, the term "Kabul Shahi" has also been used for "Hindu Shahi" when they had Udabhandapura as their capital, because Hindu Shahis were their descendants. So Ghaznavids defeated Hindu Shahis, not the early Kabul Shahis.

In the Template, we should only keep the record for the early Kabul Shahis. We are not interested in the later Hindu Shahis because they ruled outside the current Afghan territories. Ariana (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Afghan (name)
Hi Intothefire, I added refs to the Afghan (name) article. Al-Utbi and Beyhaqi had mentioned Afghans before Al-Biruni, so I placed Al-Biruni's citation after them in the paragraph. Check out the current version. Thanks.  Massa Getae  (talk)  05:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Raja Todar Mal
Hi Intothefire, you have corrected the above article but his birthplace and caste both are doubtful. Raja Todarmal was born at Laharpur (district Sitapur) Ref: Official Government website of Sitapur in Famous Personalities section where you can see the name of Raja Todar Mal. Yon can see another website of Indian National Cartographic Association where DR. R.S. TOLIA, IAS Principal Secretary & Commissioner, Forests & Rural Development, Government of Uttaranchal(INDIA) also confirms it at in Raja Todar Mal section (The Akbar Nama : Abu-I-Fazl : Translated from the Persian by Henry Beveridge, ICS. Pages : 61-62. Vol. III). It may be possible that he was shifted to Lahore from Laharpur. About his caste A Book : The Minister for permanent unrest Topic: “And on You also be Peace” Page 220 at Line 4 confirms that he was from a kayastha community and another book Introduction the medieval legacy Page 25, second last line shows that he was a Khatri Raja. Spjayswal67 (talk) 11:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In the Introduction of above article it is mentioned at Line seven "He was from the Kayastha community who holds yagyopavita (Janeo).". I think It should be like that " As per some available sources He may be from the Kayastha community who holds yagyopavita (Janeo) which appears also reliable."Italic textSpjayswal67 (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing vandalism
I noticed you fixed some recent vandalism on Sudhun and thank you for that. However, I really don't think it is necessary to list vandal edits on the talk page when a simple message like "revert vandalism" in the edit summary will do just as well. The place to warn about vandalism is on the editor's talk page using the uw-vandalism1 - uw-vandalism4 templates. To instead highlight vandalism on the article talk page could be considered incivil by some, and I am concerned that it might encourage other vandals. I have therfore removed that section from Talk:Sudhun, and would urge you to do likewise on other article talk pages where you have simply listed vandalism or warned specific editors (eg: here, here, here, and here). Astronaut (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Astronaut Thanks for your message. My reasons for recording vandal deletions of referenced content are the folowing. Intothefire (talk) 08:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Restoring referenced content on the article invariably leads to pointless edit warring.
 * Meanwhile persistent and relentless deletion of referenced content from reliable sources does render an article shoddier.
 * I really dont presume better judjment on the merits of content inclusion just because it is my contribution ...however since this is subjective, I do believe that other contributors to an article should have access to referenced content that was deletd.
 * Discussions on talk pages more often than not degenerate to personal attacks or unsubstantiated shouting.
 * To counter this I have begun to put a reference section on the talk page
 * And by specifically listing listing vandal deletions on the talk page a ready reference to reliable content is made available.
 * Since ,often sockpuppets or groups work in conjunction ...simply listing a vandal edit on a users page may not have the desired result I chose to start listing on the talk page.
 * The idea is not to offend, but shelter content.
 * There is merit in what you have suggested, and I respect the cause of wikipedia is protected by fair play and civil interaction.
 * But would it not be in the interest of an article that reliable content deleted is accumulated together, lest it is lost in incessant edit histories ?


 * I assumed that when referenced content is deleted without explanation, you have been restoring it to the article. As you are an experienced editor, I am surprised you appear to not use better methods of dealing with vandalism:
 * Warn the vandal on their user talk page, using escalating levels of vandalism warning templates like uw-vandalism1, and if they persist they can be blocked from editing for a while if you raise the issue at Administrator intervention against vandalism. Persistant vandals will get increasingly longer blocks, though in the case of some IP users it is difficult to determine if it really the same person (eg: User talk:206.78.132.254).  If there is no evidence of sufficient warnings being issued on the user talk page, your request for administrator intervention will be rejected.
 * You can also request page protection. Again there needs to be evidence of vandalism and people look at the page history rather than claims of vandalism listed in the article talk page.
 * If there is edit warring or violations of the 3-revert-rule, the issue can be raised at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Once again, you will need to supply evidence in your notification.
 * If something you are working on is being attacked by sockpuppets, you can open a case at Sockpuppet investigations. They look for common patterns in editing, using the evidence you supplied in the case the start.
 * This header box contains links to many other administrator noticeboards for dealing with problems.
 * Of course, I appreciate the subject areas you have been removing vandalism from are subject to editing from many editors who, while passionate in their views, are often inexperienced wiki-editors and for whom many do not have a good level of English. Please do keep up the good work reverting vandalism where you see it, but please consider using the tools and procedures designed for asking for administrator assistance.  Astronaut (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You requested my help
You requested my help and provided 4 examples of the problems you have been experiencing. I was going to reply on my talk page, but I felt it more relevant to place my response here. I'll watchlist this page, so if you reply here I will notice.

I am far from an expert on the history of the region and when it comes to whether something is "the truth" or not, I have only the sources to go on - in fact Wikipedia relies on verifiability rather than truth, however, I am aware that political/nationalist/tribal/language disputes have been a feature of the region for hundreds (maybe thousands) of years. I also do not read any of the languages used in the region and only have the ability to machine translate where the tools are provided (ie. Google Translate). That said, let's take a look at your concerns:


 * Ghōr Province: There seems to be some genuine dispute whether Amir Kror Suri (who died 771 AD) is the same Amir Suri who was capturd by Mahmud of Ghazni (who wasn't even born until 971 AD). Considering that 200 year time difference, it looks likely these couldn't be the same person - Inuit18, Alefbe, David Straub and Atlan were therefore correct to revert your edits.  However, it is not as clear as the reverters claim because there is also genuine dispute as to whether the primary source used in the Amir Kror Suri article, the Pata Khazana, is a work of fiction, an historical document, or a forgery.  Even so, the 200 year time difference would appear to be the major problem, rather than the Pata Khazana's validity.  If you still believe you are correct, you will need to provide a reliable source which explains this time difference and lets readers verify they were the same person.


 * Suri dynasty: It seems reasonable to me to replace the awkward looking "Pashtun (Afghan)" with "Afghan". Scythian1, could have gone with replacing "Pashtun (Afghan)" with "Pashtun", but I see no motive in their edit, other than to improve readability.


 * Talk:Sur (Pashtun): If what Alefbe says about the sources you used ("None of them were talking about anything related to a Pashtun tribe (Named Sur or Suri)" is true, then it is incorrect to use them in the article to support what you have written. However, I'm not an expert on the history of the region, I don't have any of the sources listed in the article, and therefore I am unable to verify whether Alefbe is correct to remove what you wrote.  FWIW, the one source I can read (History of the Mahomedan Power in India) doesn't seem to verify the first sentence in the article.


 * Talk:Ghurid Dynasty: Although Alefbe could have made a better reason for reverting your edit than "don't link low-quality pages...", he and Inuit18 might be right. I am not an expert on the history of the region, but if Sur (Pashtun) really is irrelevant to to the Ghurid Dynasty, then it shouldn't be added to the "See also" section.  When discussing the issue on the talk page, I notice you state "...the article Suri (Pashtun) is also directly related to the history of the Ghorians" without explaining why you think this is so.  Even when Alefbe expains the reasons for his edits, you come out fighting with accusations of vandalism and sockpuppetry rather than supporting your case.  While there are much better ways to seek mediation, if you really believe Alefbe, Inuit18, Scythian1 are sockpuppets then open a sockpuppet investigation, but be sure your evidence is solid with relevant diffs (ie. not the two unrelated diffs you supplied on the talk page which fail to show sockpuppet-like activity).

One general observation though: you should adopt a more civil tone and assume good faith when commenting on other people's edits, whether your comment is on the talk page or just in an edit summary - not everyone who reverts your edits is vandalising or doing so to be deliberately combative. Astronaut (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Copying in Wikipedia
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently copied or moved text from into. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Moonriddengirl

"I just want to say that this was many years ago, and I don't doubt that you know this now. Intothefire (talk) 06:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My last edit on this article (which I created) was on was on 2nd April 2007
 * You say :"It appears that you recently copied or moved text" and then again
 * Seems odd !!.
 * Anyway I see and agree to your point about providing attribution .I will keep it in mind
 * Would have been better to have specifically flagged the copyright infringment content instead of broad brushing the entire article into oblivion.


 * Hi. Sorry if it confused you. :) It's a "form letter." The "many years ago" note was the personal bit. I'm afraid I can't specifically flag the parts of the article that are problems and the ones that aren't. I know that the individual whose text you copied when you founded the article copied extensively from the book in question. He is currently subject to a WP:CCI. Since you didn't indicate where the text came from, additional investigation will be needed to determine if it was all copied from that article or if it comes from others. If the origin of the text cannot be determined, given that it verifiably duplicates content from that book, it may be that the article will need to be rewritten from scratch. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject India Newsletter Volume V, Issue no. 1 - (June 2010)
This newsletter is automatically delivered by --  Tinu  Cherian BOT  - 18:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Swat River citation
Hi, please could you clarify the citation in Swat River which you added last year? - Fayenatic (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Fayenatic

the first should have come after ''Journal of Indian History By , the second should have been after ''University of Kerala , hope that clarifies. Intothefire (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it needs repair.
 * The citation should have been ''Journal of Indian History By, University of Kerala Dept. of History, University of Allahabad Dept. of Modern Indian History, University of Travancore, University of Kerala , Published by Dept. of Modern Indian History, 1963 page 28
 * Two commas are missing in the citation I provided in the article ....

Khetran
Regarding your recent change to it, where you restored cited content deleted by me, I went a long way to find the content. Unfortunately enough it was a false. Given the years, 1913-1936, it is the first edition of enclyopedia. The first edition of the enclyopedia contains 549 pages while the user gives reference of page number 631, which does not exist in the book.

Furthermore the IP address from which it was changed is the very same IP addressed which vandalized almost the whole article. It also removed some important sources and quotations of historians which are in driect conflict with this (false) reference.

Thus I'm reverting back the changes. if you have any queries please feel free.

Regards

OmerKhetran (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please refer here


 * OmerKhetran (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hans
Look at Punjab Castes by Ibbetson, at page 203 para 508 Hans and Khagga. Secondly, the Montgommery Gazatteer of 1935, and the 1961 Distict Census Report of Montgommery District both have accounts on the Hans.

In the tribes and Castes by Rose, look at page 261, under the Qureshi entry.

--WALTHAM2 (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Response 1
 * In the three volume hard copy version I have
 * Volume 11 -Page 203 and 204 page heading is Chura lays and no mention of Hans and Khagga.
 * In Volume 111 -Page 203 page heading is Pabati -Parhot no mention of Hans and Khagga either . Please inform the correct Volume ....or the publisher ,specially since the page no you provided for qureshi is correct ...why would these be incorrect ? or different ? unless we are looking at two completely different published versions .
 * Then you mention page 261 entry of Qureshi ...this is correct... and the volume is 111,  and should help us improve the content on the page as well as the citation.
 * As regards the 1961 Distict Census Report of Montgommery District ....here again please inform the specific page no, which you have still not provided.

Intothefire (talk) 07:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Pre-Islamic heritage of Afghanistan
Category:Pre-Islamic heritage of Afghanistan, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

November 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Kutha meat. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Sikh- History 19:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Later
Maybe the categories will be addressed later, but i had a seperate discussion somewhere. Im glad you're enjoying the random anarchy of wikipedia. Someone65 (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject India Newsletter Volume V, Issue no. 2 - November 2010
This newsletter is automatically delivered by User:Od Mishehu AWB, operated by עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:Sikh-history. Thank you. ''You must change your tone and style of editing. You are not Assuming Good Faith. I suggest you read WP:AGF.'' Sikh- History 08:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

December 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Matharu. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Sikh- History 19:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Matharu. Thank you. Sikh- History 08:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

On your concerns with SikhHistory
Greetings, I am not an Admin, so cannot help you there. However, a cursory glance at your links shows some concerning issues. I note that a lengthy, detailed list of your concerns was removed from a Talk page as "personal attacks" which it most obviously was not, as it solely addressed an editor's behavior in editing that particular article.

What I would recommend you do is go to WP:ANI (admin noticeboard) and write a very clear and relatively short summary of major concerns. Give it a good clear title like "Possible COI by admin SikhHistory". Then write a very basic info paragraph explaining your overall concerns, in a way that someone completely unfamiliar with the topic would understand: not "But it was in 1978 that Gupta Singh did this, NOT 1979!!!", but instead "my references to the Indian Times have been removed and replaced with quoates from a sectarian blog."

Below that, list out a few examples of the most concerning behavior, such as "removed my detailed and polite concerns, labeling them a personal attack", and then give a link to the "dif". The "dif" is the page where it shows the difference between two versions; where you go into the article History and fill in the bubbles to compare two versions, just copy-paste the address in your text bar and put it between [ brackets ] so that they can rapidly find your examples.

Definitely desist from engaging SikhHistory in the meantime, let the ANI sort him out. Just remember in your ANI post to assume the reader knows nothing about your situation, so make sure to provide context. Argue very unemotionally and dispassionately, just point out the basic facts and how you feel they are against WP policy, in bad faith, or not constructive to improving the articles. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Intothefire. I have worked with SikhHistory on a couple of articles and I found him to be a good contributor. You need to realise that SikhHistory is not an administrator; he is an ordinary editor. You did have some valid concerns [| here] about the content of several articles, but the last few sentences, where you accuse SikhHistory of sock puppetry and meat puppetry and compare him to a "notorious vandal" led him to remove the post in its entirety and not address your concerns about the content of the articles or the quality of the sources. Your use of the terms "crazy", "bizzarre", "odd", "ludicrous", and "misleading" got a really negative response from SikhHistory, and it's not really surprising. Use of these inflammatory terms does not lead to collegiate editing. I will also be posting a message on SikhHistory's talk page, which you are welcome to read. -- Diannaa (Talk) 01:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Intothefire, thanks for leaving me a note. Although your allegations have been removed from Talk:Matharu, I read them in the page history. Perhaps you don't understand the tools that Wikipedia has for undoing vandalism and reverting to a previous version of a page. In the particular edit that I think you were complaining about, User:Sikh-history was just undoing this vandalism by an anon editor, putting the page back into the state that it was before. Once you understand how WP:UNDO works, and take a few seconds to check previous versions of the page, you can see that it was incorrect to accuse Sikh-history of adding uncited material.
 * Although WP:REVERT tells you how to undo vandalism, using tools available to all editors (not just admins), you may be tempted to use them to reinstate your own preferred version of pages. It is obvious that these tools can be abused, and can lead to "edit wars". Therefore Wikipedia has a straightforward rule which is applied rigidly, WP:3RR -- anyone who misuses reversion will be blocked for a while to cool off. Actually this works well, as it's sometimes good for us to learn to give more respect and consideration to each other. I hope that won't be necessary in your case! Happy New Year - Fayenatic (talk) 08:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Intothefire, please do not make disparaging remarks about other editors like you did here. Normally it is against wiki rules to remove other people's talk page posts, but since part of the post that SikhHistory removed constituted a personal attack, it is permitted to remove that post. This has already been explained to you, so it is inappropriate for you to be going on about the matter, especially on other people's talk pages. Please stop. -- Diannaa (Talk) 17:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

A Summary of what transpired between me and the user called Sikh-history that led to this dialogue
Hi Dianna Your advice is noteworthy. Yes the politesse of engagement must be equal to the substance  we contribute  to Wikipeedia ! But how impolite is it to politely delude ?, My issue is with the frequently deceptive nature of mis-referenced, non-referenced , and disingenuous reinstatement of bad content by this user. I will come to other issues later but first a special point


 * The Dasam Granth is the second most sacred book of Sikhism . The user who goes by the name Sikh history has provided a link on the external links section that reads Can Sikhs Eat Meat but it leads paradoxically to a website http://www.dasamgranthexposed.com Pray what is the Insinuation or significance  or import of providing a link to a site such as this by the user called Sikh history . Dissent should be voiced but should it be deceiving ? I dont know what wikipedia policies are for external links . But this is a telling contribution  indicative of scores of other misleading edits  by this user.

Now to more specific issues with this user.

The last section of this message provides connection to the above. immoderate words taken, but several terms used alluded to articles and not the user. I trust you have carefully seen the other issues I brought up ...such as misleading links, Connected links to other pages that have linking misinformation. More importantly I do not buy that reinstatement of content of a compulsive vandal msnanda by Sikh history is a coincidence . Specially since what he reinstated on the Khatri page is exactly in line with what you see on the Nanda page. See the Nanda page, it would give you an idea of why I called it crazy.
 * We seem to have interests in similar pages.
 * I had noticed a pattern in scores of  articles related to  South Asia to have similar disingenuous , unreferenced , unexplained content added  , or content  changed or  inserted unexplained by users such as 122.162.3.95 and similar 86.144.107.252 and similar Msnanda
 * On 16th November I post a message on his talk page
 * On 16 November 2010 I posted a message for the user called Sikh-history on the Khatri talk page  . I was perplexed why he had inserted  unreferenced content . His responses were unconvincing and contrary to the history of the page, since it shows that he had repeatedly inserted unreferenced and to my mind incorrect information . I found his response nonchalant other than being non specific , as you would see from the discussion on this page ...link provided at the begining of this point.
 * On 22nd November I put a note on the  Kutha meat talk  because the page had every possible kind of Obfuscation . And I provided specific instances . Point conceded that I should have tempered my introduction . But the entire article was rife with inconsistencies - my concern was the way non references had been presented as references.
 * the user called Sikh history replies again in an ambivalent manner . No Specific response was forthcoming.
 * The user called Sikh history responds ,references alluded to, by him are from a blog site.. not a book, provides false information
 * On 24th November I replied in detail again pointing out the factual inaccuracy of the references and content
 * On 25th The user called Sikh history responds . Please read this very carefully ...and the quality of references being pushed ...page nos missing, references pointing to a summary in the same article , misquotes from websites , Sikhtimes a blog presented as a reference ...and still more misleading , references alluding to a view held by a person in a book who holds views contrary to the stated mainstream of   sikhism . If a counter point had to be included that would have been fine provided it was stated thus and not to present it as the mainstream view specially since there is a stated religious position by the Sikh clergy.
 * Changes heading. Considering my queries were replied with acquisitions of stalking and bad faith, the user puts in another 22 edits on the article on the references.
 * Notwithstanding see the quality of references still, references leading to Amazon , ISBN NOS without a page no , ISBN Weblinks linking to wikipedia . Please see these carefully.
 * And finaly my contribution to the Matharu talk page where the user gives me a final warning ?? and deletes my post.Your point about
 * The bad reference /content issues I have brought up span over at least four articles ...I could provide more instances.

Hope your proactive intercession is equally weighted to content  legitimacy RegardsIntothefire (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Intothefire. I have already written a note to SikhHistory explaining to him that his responses to people's questions have been inadequate, and he concedes that point; he has promised to respond more thoroughly to other editor's concerns in the future. You have posted no links to new material here; the items you post above are the same thing I have already looked at in detail. Sikh History's behavior does not warrant any further administrative action or sanctions, if that's what you're thinking; if you disagree with that assessment, you are free to pursue dispute resolution. For my part, I have warned Sikh History, and since there are no new examples of inappropriate behavior, it looks like the behavior has stopped. No further warnings are needed or appropriate at this time.
 * Your second concern is that you think Sikh-History is a sock puppet of a user called User:Msnanda. That seems unlikely, as Sikh-History has been editing here almost daily since 2006, and Msnanda edited briefly, mostly in April 2009 and July 2009. The two accounts look totally unrelated. If you wish to pursue this sockpuppetry accusation, the place to lodge your complaint is at WP:SPI.
 * Also, to call user Msnanda a "compulsive vandal" is inaccurate. WP:vandalism is when people change the name of their high school principal to Hitler, or add nonsense or obscenities to articles, or blank pages, or remove content with no explanation. Msnanda did not do any of those things. Content disputes do not qualify as vandalism. -- Diannaa (Talk) 20:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Here are some more details on your specific items.


 * edited less than 100 edits from July 3 to 8, 2009. The IP geolocates to New Delhi.
 * edited less than 200 posts from November 9 to 14, 2009. This IP geolocates to Sheffield, England.
 * posted around 250 times; they edited mostly in April and July of 2009. The only connection between these people and Sikh-History is that they have edited some of the same articles. 122.162.3.95 and Msnanda may both be the same person, as they both say they are nineteen years old.
 * this diff shows that Sikh-History was restoring content removed with no explanation by blocked user User:Dhruvekhera. This person is currently blocked for six months for disruptive editing and racist remarks.
 * With this edit, Sikh History was undoing damage done by User:Bb5757, who is currently serving their fourth block for disruptive editing, in particular, removal of properly sourced material from the Arora article.
 * If you have a problem with the quality of the references being used, the correct place to go is Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Sikh-History explained that he thought the references used in the Kutha meat article were fine, so that would be your next step.
 * Changed the heading: Sikh-History should not have changed the heading, as it was part of your post.
 * this diff I have already discussed in detail above. -- Diannaa (Talk) 21:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Need Opinion
Hi, can you please step into discussion here Talk:Decline_of_Hinduism_in_Pakistan and give your opinion. Thanks Sarmadhassan (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Khukhrain
As in the discussion of the Topic : Khukhrian you have citied the original content. Can you rever back the same? A person named Anoop Kohli who's IP Address was blocked by wikipedia is now again using the content of the website www.khukhrains.com and have posted from different ip addresses on to the page. Can you rever the content to original/earlier ver as citied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.52.244 (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on RFC regarding the stubbing (deletion) of the Mathematics in medieval Islam article
You are invited to comment on the content dispute regarding the stubbing of the Mathematics in medieval Islam article Thank You -Aquib (talk) 04:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hindu and Buddhist heritage of Pakistan
Hi - I have nominated this article for deletion because it appears to be an unnecessary duplication of the scope, work and content of Hinduism in Pakistan and Buddhism in Pakistan. Please lend your views. Thanks! Shiva  (Visnu)  08:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

your support
Dear Infothefile. The limits placed on editing the article, will be lifted by tomorrow .So far Rawalpindi Express have not agreed on the issue of deveopling consensus. Instead he have asked Averroist to assist him  “reverting the article  back to  his  edits”. (quote from Averroist talk page). It is clear message that he will like to control the article with his own way without respecting others opinions. I don’t have objection on  the number of references. But I am against his repetitions. For me Kalgan more resembles with Kalkan/kalakan instead of Kalan Shah. Gowrarra, resembles with Arorra but gow-rrara do means cow herder in Pashtu while he insist to place him in article as Gohar Shah. For him Khokhar Awan and Chohan Awan got the names of mother tribes which is not the custom of this regios. I am of opinion Mr.Khokhar and Chohan married Qutab shah Daughters and later got attached with Awan’s as Qutab Shah’s adopted Sons. What is wrong if he married his daughters to local? When we all accept that he married his Sons to local girls .then it is also possible that he married his daughters to local Muslims. First derive theory does not convinve me as Pashtu/Persian/Arabic and Sanskrit are old languages and they have plenty of words to express helper so why a king who was aleast not knowing (Arabic/ Sanskrit) needed to derived a word for those languages. Any how If the Title of Awan is derived from ( Ahwan (Sanskrit), Haiwan (Persian, Urdu), and Own (English), then this must be supported by dictionary page numbers . In the past he tried to keep his hold on the article and I guess in the future he will try the same. I need your support to save  the rights of all the editors no matter they are  seasoned one or new comers. Regards Alamsherkhan Alamsherkhan (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Alamsherkhan, there is little use in appealing to Averroist (amongst others), since he also not only realises the extent to which you have vandalised the article, he has also informed Black Kite about this (and as you know, it was Black Kite who took the step of protecting the article); to quote him:

“Thanks for protectecting the article from editing, but I want to bring into your notice one thing. The article according to the last edit made by Rawalpindi Express contains 41 references, but Alam Sher Khan deleted first five references in his last edit, and you have protected the article with only 36 references. It is the policy of Wikipedia that, ‘Good articles start with a brief lead section introducing the topic.’ Please compare this brief lead section of both versions. You must also see the history of contributions of both users. Rawalpindi Express is giving justification in edit summary of every edit, while Alamsherkhan is deleting, removing referenced material,referenced citations and referenced quotes from this article without any edit summary, and thus he is engaging in non-constructive vandalism. And you have protected the article on his last edit. Rawalpindi Express has long contributing history with positive edits against vandalism, but Alamsherkhan is a new user with a history of engaging in non-constructive vandalism. It is therefore requested that the the article should be restored to the last edit made by Rawalpindi Express, so that till the disputes have been resolved, the standard, principles and guidelines of Wikipedia must be maintained. Regards Averroist (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)”

It is also Averroist who awarded me with the Anti-Vandalism Barnstar, for my “endless work for protecting Wikipedia article on Awan.”

Moving on, if you are going to make allegations about me, then at least ensure that there is a kernel of truth to what you say. To say that I don’t respect the opinions of others, is complete and utter nonsense. If this was the case, then why didn’t I remove the citation recently added by Intothefire (whom you’ve also appealed to), which mentions the views of Professor Hasan Dhani? As I have emphasised before, despite me being an Awan, I have no cast-iron opinions regarding the origin of the Awan tribe, and that is why I have incorporated the viewpoints of authors who consider the traditional claim made by the bulk of the tribe to Arab origins to be reasonable, as well as the opinions of commentators who reject this contention. Moreover, Intothefire’s inclusion is valid, because his addition was fully referenced – this is a basic point that you still fail to grasp. In fact, apart from Averroist highlighting that you continue to ignore this crucial point, even Intothefire has pointed this out to you (and I quote him directly from a message he left on your user page), “Since this is an encyclopedia, its best that that all information provided is backed up by valid and reliable secondary sources .” Above all, when I myself contacted you, I categorically stated, “...if you are in possession of source material you’d like to add to the article, providing that it is relevant to the subject matter, and fully referenced, then please do contribute to the article, thereby making it more comprehensive.” (And I welcome said additions from anyone else.)

As Intothefire has underlined (and as did I when I got in touch with you), this is an encyclopedia, not a forum for your personal opinions. You assert that I have attempted to keep a "hold" on this article – this is patently untrue. You have only started making contributions to Wikipedia; had you been doing at an earlier point, you would have been aware of the fact that the article in question had not only become a complete mess (which you have taken it back to, due to grammatical errors on your part, and alterations you have made to the structure of the article that have disrupted its flow, as well as rendering it unreadable at times), it was also full of personal points of view, such as those you are attempting to add to the article. As such, a number of senior editors, tagged the entire article and decided that additions to the article that were unreferenced, would have to be removed. Due to this, I spent a number of months accumulating a wide range of source material – whatever was contained within the article that I was able to substantiate, I retained, and whatever I was unable to substantiate (with the aid of valid source material), was removed (as per the request of the senior editors). In fact, to this day, I continue to endeavour that all additions made to the article are fully referenced, I continue to make additions to the article in an effort to improve it (such as the addition of the photo gallery, and the views of contemporary scholars), and when necessary, I continue to refine and clean up the article – so this isn’t a question of me trying to keep a “hold” on the article as you claim, it’s a question of me putting months of hard work into ensuring this is an article of the highest quality possible, that also conforms to certain standards set by Wikipedia (and it is not only Averroist who acknowledges this. Recently, Intothefire also said of my contributions, “Thankyou for the great effort and attention you put into the article . Your contributions are commendable.”), only to have you arbitrarily remove valid and fully referenced additions that do not conform to your personal point of view, and add viewpoints that are unsubstantiated.

Contrary to what you claim, whatever my own personal opinions may be, I have not added them to the article (respecting the fact that doing so is unacceptable as this is an encyclopaedia, and not my own personal thesis) – just recently, Intothefire raised concerns about additions to the article that he considered to constitute personal viewpoints, and having reached a consensus with him (as he made perfectly reasonable points), these additions were removed (thus once again negating your claims about me not being prepared to accept the opinions of others). I should also stress that not all of the material included within the article was added by me either (once again underlining just how false your claims about me are), and all such material has been retained on the basis that it can be substantiated by reliable references. As for you claiming that you object to the “repetitions” I have made within the article, once again, not only are your expressing a personal point of view (which, given the nature of your edits, I don’t wholly accept, but look upon as being a judgement coloured by your biases), it’s a claim that is invalid because the quotes and citations you have removed (valid and fully referenced, and thus your actions are unjustified), lend weight to the additions made to the article as they substantiate and reinforce these pertinent additions. You state, '''“For me Kalgan more resembles with Kalkan or kalakhan instead of Kalan Shah. Gowrarra, resembles with Arorra. gow-rrara do means cow herder in Pashtu while he insist to place him as Gohar Shah in th article. For him Khokhar Awan and Chohan Awan got the names of mother tribes but I am of opinion Mr.Khokhar and Mr. Chohan married Qutab shah Daughters and the got attached with Awan tribe as Qutab Shah’s adopted Sons.”''' Firstly, is it arrogance that blinds you to just how ironic the claims you make about me are, in the light of such a statement? In case it needs to be pointed out to you yet again, these are your own personal opinions, and thus, unless you can back them up with referenced source material, it is not reasonable to expect them to be included within the article. Secondly, I am not insistent on naming the individuals in the fashion you so object to, due to my personal viewpoints, but because those are direct quotes and citations, and therefore those who authored the works that reference has been made to, refer to these individuals as such – therefore, if you are not already aware of this, please let me draw your attention to the fact that you cannot alter a direct quote or citation. As for what you have to say about Rose needing to cite page numbers from a dictionary in order to support his views, that’s just ridiculous; the work authored by Rose, is widely-respected and widely-acknowledged, and has been cited by other experts in this field (and as it is, you not have cited a single page number from any valid or recognised source – does this not smack of hypocrisy on your part?). And in case it escaped your attention, I actually did cite a dictionary reference relating to the etymology of ‘Awan’ (complete with a page number).

Lastly, at least have the decency not to spread blatant lies about me; you told Averroist that I “got warning for deletion” – that you can be so disingenuous, beggars belief; I never received any such warning, the reality is, Palltrast warned me about engaging in an edit war with you – it’s the same warning you also received from him, and in the interests of jogging your memory, let me reproduce said warning that was left on your user page, as well as mine:

“You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Awan (Pakistan). Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: 1.	Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Palltrast (talk) 06:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)”

Your hypocrisy and attempts to twist the truth, are breathtaking, Alamsherkhan.

Rawalpindi Express (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi!!!
Hi Intothefire. Contrary to what you may think due to our recent interaction, seeing you blocked is the last thing I want to happen. I have some of the same concerns which you have. But I cannot achieve anything by getting myself banned, can I? Some of the issues which concern you had recently come up for discussion at WT:IN, too. However, I don't remember seeing any comments from you there. You can watchlist the noticeboard to keep abreast of India related issues which come up there. And do feel free to drop in on my talk page from time to time. :-) M W ℳ 08:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Formatting of posts
Is there any reason why, after nearly 5000 edits, you are still incapable of following the guidelines for talk page posts? Your latest here is as poorly formatted etc as any of your previous ones, and this is despite you being asked previously to pay more attention to this issue. - Sitush (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk: Jat people. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. There are way's and methods of doing things without personal attacks. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">S <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">H 18:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

ANI comments
Discussions at WP:ANI can become quite heated at times. Comments made there are seen by a concentrated audience of administrators and other experienced users. As such, it is sensible to word such comments carefully; perhaps even more so than you would usually do. For this reason, I think it might be wise for you to read up on Wikipedia's attitude towards personal attacks and good faith before you add anything further to that page. Of course, it is entirely your choice whether or not to heed this advice. - Sitush (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I asked you in October and I ask again ... why can you not follow the convention for indenting of your messages? I am becoming a trifle irritated with having to reformat your indents, in particular because refactoring the comments of others is not usually A Good Thing. Please, please, start doing things properly. - Sitush (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thankyou Sitush, your concern for me is touching , am sorry if my indents have irritated you ! .Intothefire (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What I am concerned about is a clear unwillingness to comply with even the most basic of communally accepted standards. If you cannot or will not even abide by such things as this then I think that you are on a slippery slope. Indeed, until you do start complying with such fundamentals I am inclined to ignore further messages from you on the basis that you are being deliberately (if trivially) disruptive. We all make mistakes but you appear not to be learning, despite your 5000+ contributions. Are you deliberately trying to wind people up? If so then the end result will be that you are ignored because that is the best way to treat wind-up merchants. - Sitush (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sitush, I am a wind up merchant because I dont know how to indent ? Dont be so angry ,honestly please teach me the right way to indent . We can all learn .Sitush Your scholarship is remarkable and Ive said it earlier , but you need to learn how to accept that while you may know what others don't ,others may know what you don't , when you turn articles on their head along with your team ,browbeat other editors together , with patently imbalanced content and  unfairly bringing down everything in the article ( really the other side of the  bigging up coin ) , then be prepared for your content to be confronted .  CheersIntothefire (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * When working on article content, what individual editors "know" is largely irrelevant - it's only what they can reference to reliable sources that counts (see WP:RS). And when there is a disagreement about the reliability of sources, it should be solved by discussion and consensus on the relevant Talk page, not by arguing about which editor "knows" best. Also, I'd repeat Sitush's caution on making inflammatory comments about other editors, as I also thought your comments at ANI were coming close to a personal attack - not close enough for action, but please do be careful not to build up a history of personal accusations, as the blocked editor in that case did -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Boing! said Zebedee, you say When working on article content, what individual editors "know" is largely irrelevant - it's only what they can reference to reliable sources that counts (see WP:RS). And when there is a disagreement about the reliability of sources, it should be solved by discussion and consensus on the relevant Talk page, not by arguing about which editor "knows" best.....Disappointing that my conciliatory response to Sitush in spite of his name calling misses your attention.
 * Sitush calls me a wind up merchant, on my talk page ,.....which article page is he discussing other than me ?
 * There are ample talk pages on record where I have discussed content instead of deletions/or edit warring, which specific article or talk page are you referring to where I have not properly discussed reliability of sources with Sitush.
 * Considering the absence of your mentioning a specific circumstance of incident on a page or talk page your advice is extraneous and erroneous, in fact am surprised as an admin you dident find Sitush name calling comment "personal accusation" .Your comment here is is inequitable .Intothefire (talk) 12:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I really only meant my comments as a friendly caution - I can see you are a long-time contributor, but I also see from this Talk page that you have a history of conflict with other editors. All I'm suggesting is that what's needed here is to tone down the rhetoric and assume good faith a bit more, on everyone's part. And the "sources vs knowledge" thing is absolutely crucial, as it is the core of what qualifies material to be included. I was *not* accusing you of not discussing sources, and made no suggestions at all that you were - I was merely responding to your "knowledge" comment, and pointing out that personal knowledge is not what counts here. Anyway, I'm sorry if you saw my comments as confrontational and/or accusatory, when all I intended was to offer constructive advice - but if that's not welcome, I shall say no more -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Boing! said Zebedee, I am embarrassed by your apology , am sorry too if my comment was too sharp here<BR>  : )  Intothefire (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries - all's well that ends well :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya
I've deleted your recent additions to Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya but will try to go through them later to see if there is in fact anything that can be salvaged. You had effectively done exactly the same thing as in previous contributions to articles such as Khokhars and Gakhars (Hindu), ie: inserted an unnecessarily long quotation. Those articles turned into quote farms and even now are very, very poor due to the disconnection between the various elements within them. Furthermore, your edit to Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya seemed to me possibly to have taken the sources out of context, thus presenting a one-sided "weasel-y" depiction of the man. This appearance is from my own memory of those sources: I'll check later today and reinstate if appropriate.

I know that the issue of quote farms has been raised in relation to your contributions on several occasions in the past. Please can you try to use your own words and limit quotations to, say, a maximum of three or four sentences. There is no set rule, but common sense plays a large part: we are supposed to be writing an encyclopaedia here, not forming articles that consists mainly of verbatim copies of what someone else said.If quotes become more than, say, 5% or 10% of an article then we're probably doing something wrong. - Sitush (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Baij Nath Puri
You inserted "Baij Nath Puri states that "The wrong concept about the status of the Khatris in Hindu Social hierarchy was initially brought forth by a pseudo pandit Joginder Nath Bhattacharya who was a dismissed employee of the Burdwan Khatri Rai" .[3] He gave vent to his feeling [4] ,under the influence of a personal grudge against Burdwan".[5]" into Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya a few hours ago. It is clearly derived from a snippet view of the book here. Please do not insert into articles content which it is quite clear you are taking from a GBooks snippet view: such views lack sufficient context for assessment of the points being raised by the author(s), however certain it may appear to be.

I apologise for continuing to raise such issues here but, really, what else can I do? Somehow, I have to get the message across. - Sitush (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop using talk pages such as Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Talk:Khatri, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Sitush (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Block
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for making personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Sorry, but you have to stop these personal attacks. Disagreeing with other editors is fine, and saying that you think they are wrong is fine, but comments like the following are simply not acceptable... I tried to caution you earlier in a friendly manner after you did somewhat malign the same editor at ANI, because I really did not want you to be blocked (you clearly have done quite a bit of good work at Wikipedia), but I can't stand by and ignore personal attacks like this. Please do have a read of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, and feel free to request an unblock if you believe you can continue to edit without repeating this behaviour -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "How horrendous then that you present abject lies on this page"
 * "Sitush you could do better than relying on lies, but its good you did , because it only exhibits the fraudulent methods you have been on to on various pages and editors . Too bad for you that I am meticulous with my posts so your lies gets caught repeatedly"


 * Boing! said Zebedee
 * Ostensibly you blocked me for accusing  Sitush in the course of this discussion, for a personal attack ,which you explain here  stemmed  from me using the words and phrases like ''horrendous, abject lies , fraudulent methods on various pages
 * Very well, you are an admin and acted to discharge  your duty , as you deem judicious.
 * But There are a couple of incongruities here.
 * 1) Please categorically state weather in your best judgment,  calling someone a  a wind up merchant , is  ,or is not ,  a personal attack ?
 * 2) and if not, which specific topic/wikipedia content page does this post of Sitush  , in which  Sitush is callin me a a wind up merchant ,progressed  ?
 * Intothefire (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there is an order of magnitude of difference between "wind-up merchant" and "horrendous, abject lies" etc. I also think there's a difference in frequency, and I feel you have been uncivil on too many occasions. At this stage, I don't think any action against Sitush's "wind up" comment or any of your earlier comments is needed, but if you disagree you are, of course, welcome to take to up further. WP:WQA might be the best place, or if you feel direct admin action is needed, maybe file your own report at WP:ANI. But do be aware that if you take any such action, your own past behaviour is also likely to be examined. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * My comments were deemed personal attacks ...you took a categorical position and blocked me.


 * Your current response "magnitude of difference" is a relative phrase ,surely an editor you block  can not be the barometer to measure for judging another . I never asked you to  block  Sitush.
 * Now categorically and boldly state your position is the use of the term wind-up merchant a personal attack or not ?
 * Intothefire (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I've given you my position, and I don't respond to demands. But please do feel free to file a report in the appropriate forum if you think my actions require review. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * in your not answering lies the answer : )
 * Intothefire (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Welcome back. FWIW, I did not call you a wind-up merchant. I asked whether it was your intention to wind people up and stated that, if so, then my best recourse would be to ignore you. In other words, I was pointing out that if you continue in that vein (failure to indent, cryptic responses to messages etc) then the most likely outcome was that people would ignore your comments. However, feel free to report me as BSZ suggests. - Sitush (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Bong said Zebedee said, you did , "there was a magnitude of difference" , now  you say you did not ,
 * he said I may consider reporting him/her, now you say "feel free to report me as BSZ suggests".
 * did BSZ suggest I report him/her, or did BSZ suggest I report you ,or are you saying that BSZ said report him/her but actually mean report you . Its really confusing .Intothefire (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You still have not got this indenting business sorted out (yet again: add one more ":" than was used for the previous message). You can report me to WQA or ANI if you believe that I was uncivil/attacking, although the former venue is probably better; you can report BSZ to ANI for blocking you if you believe that it was wrong. My opinion is that there is indeed "a magnitude of difference" - your "lies" stuff was an attack, whereas my comment was a question & a comment on the likely outcome if the answer to that question was "yes". Is that clear now? I am not responding further to this point as I've suffered this endless alleged inability to understand in the past and it just wastes my time. You are a reasonably experienced user and I think that you should know your way around by now, especially since you have in fact participated in ANI discussions etc. I cannot make it any more clear than I already have, and I have got better things to do, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 03:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Intothefire I did warn you about this sort of behaviour a long time ago. Even a veiled attack is still an attack. Thanks <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">S <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">H 08:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, here's something of an answer to the demand above, where you asked me to make a categorical statement about the two sets of comments.

The thing is, I don't see the world of human interaction as being split into unambiguous categories. Instead, when it comes to dialogue, there is a whole spectrum of civility, from sweetness and light at one end to vile attack at the other - and most interaction falls somewhere in between. Now, when I see a comment and need to decide from an admin perspective whether it needs any action, I examine how far to the "attack" end of the spectrum I think it is. Sitush's comment (question, or whatever) was so mild that I didn't even need to consider it - whereas yours, coupled with your similar past behaviour, to my mind clearly was sufficient to require action. And that's it really.

As for your "confusion" above, it really is easy to understand - all people are saying is that if *you* believe someone's comments need admin action, *you* are welcome to make the decision for yourself and make whatever report *you* feel is appropriate - we're not going to hold your hand and tell you exactly who to report, where, and when.

Finally, looking back over your past interactions, I see a pretty aggressive approach to disagreement in general, and I think that's your main problem. You really do need to tone down your confrontational attitude and try assuming good faith a bit more - before you hit the "Save page" button, stop for a moment, imagine yourself in a face-to-face situation, and think about whether you would openly say those same words were you not hidden behind a keyboard. Best wishes -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (PS: I've tidied up the indenting to make it easier to follow - just one ":" is all that's needed for one indent -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC))


 * Boing! said Zebedee - It is off course a great deal easier to make general judgments about me   then to arrive at conclusions by meticulously ascertaining  or providing detail . How fair is it of you then to  repeatedly  denounce  my "confrontational attitude" on talk pages ", while  completely    overlooking  ,  disingenuous and confrontational editing , on article pages  by editors you are concurrently interacting with  and intervening for.


 * Although you only question the choice of words, your question in a larger context  poses a   significant    question , about the  wisdom , ethics and conventions ,   of unbridled  interaction hidden behind a keyboard  incognito , with a room full of strange  incognito entity's .Intothefire (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I'm not intervening for Sitush, I'm intervening for the sake of Wikipedia and to prevent personal attacks - that's what admins do. And I'm not choosing to *repeatedly* denounce your attitude, I'm responding to a specific request from you to explain myself further. If you ask me questions, I will respond in *my* way, and as your apparently aggressive approach to disagreement was a key part of my action, I cannot explain myself without referring to it.


 * But you are certainly right about the whole issue of communicating via online media, with no identities known, and no access to the usual body language that helps us gauge each other - it's something I deal with in my professional life too, and it's tricky.


 * Anyway, I've said nothing here that I would not say to you in person and in good faith, and I hope you'll recognize it for the attempt at constructive interaction that it is intended to be. My comments really are largely aimed at defusing conflict and helping you avoid future problems that could end up getting you blocked again - because I really don't want that to happen. Best wishes - -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Boing! said Zebedee, You have continuously intervened on behalf of Sitush , and it could be for the article or the discussion . Laying great emphasis on  the form of my (aggression) on talk pages ,but ignoring the content of  my posts explaining  the anomalies on the article page inserted( or deleted)  by Sitush .   In spite of me providing specific evidence of Sitush's citing  erroneous reasons  for deleting content ( a recent case in point - on the Jogendra Nath page - his  edit summary alluded to a long  Jogendranath  quote but also deleted Baijnath citation  ) . I have striven to be  accurate with my content sources , as well  careful not to delete contributions by others , I think its patently rude to delete or deflate without discussion .  I am no doubt richer for my  understanding of wikipedia , for having encountered you both together . There really is nothing more constructive towards defusing  conflict than to be fair in letter and spirit . For when we "First clean the inside of the cup and dish , and then the outside also will be clean". CheersIntothefire (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

A revert is not an addition
In December last year someone explained to you why a revert is not an addition. You may want to re-read that message because the error that you appear to have made on that occasion was repeated earlier today here. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The simultaneous and even handed post by the same admin pertaining to this post puts the matter in its complete perspective. Again you provide only half the facts Intothefire (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not arguing about the merits of the December kerfuffle. What I am saying is that the explanation of why a revert is not an addition (a generic explanation, the precise cause of which is irrelevant here) is something that you seem to have forgotten in the interval, or perhaps never accepted when it was first provided to you. So, again, you are accusing me of something that I did not say and did not mean. - Sitush (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Baid
Hello, Intothefire, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you worked on, Baid, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:


 * 1) edit the page
 * 2) remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) save the page

It helps to explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the Help Desk. Thanks again for contributing! Qwyrxian (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * ....sad ...that you wish to delete the article . The Baid or Vaid are part of a South Asian Punjabi community called the Mohyal .There are Hindu as well as Muslim Baid . All content on Wikipedia that does not have a citation is not a falsehood, as every content that has a citation is not the truth . But go ahead I wont oppose . Cheers Intothefire (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, what is sad is that after 5000+ contributions you seem still not to have got the hang of the basics, such as verifiability, citing and, yet again, indenting. Can you not find any sources for the Baid article? Is there anything under the alternate ''Vaid' name? Is there any merit in merging/redirecting to Mohyal? - Sitush (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Deleting an unsourced Wikipedia article does *not* imply falsehood, and nobody is suggesting the article is untrue. It's just that the project quite rightly insists on verifiability, and if we did not have that, anyone could write any old nonsense they please -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added some sources. It remains a mess, and it is clear that there are far more uses for the term than were initially noted,, but there may be a chance to salvage this if you are willing to do some digging. In fact, there is the potential for two or three articles here, plus a disambiguation page. - Sitush (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent example of the appropriate way to respond to a PROD, thank you - I think that's enough to remove the PROD now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not include unsupported or inaccurate statements. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Jatt Sikh, you must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Referencing for beginners for guidelines. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 10:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Jatt Sikh. Thank you. ''

That is a straight BLP violation. Stop it, please.'' Sitush (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * On the addition of eminent Sikh Jats by me on Jatt Sikh page this editor posts complaints to me and an admin,  But here the the same  editor is carefully improving list of 11 Jats .Intothefire (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Jatt Sikh
Please can you stop adding people to the list of notable Jatt Sikhs unless you have a reliable source to support that they were in fact Jatt Sikh. Furthermore, if they are alive then you should ensure that they have self-identified as being of that community, otherwise the info may still be deleted. There has been a discussion rumbling about this at WT:INB for some days now but it is basically several people vs one, and only the one would support the actions in which you are currently engaged. - Sitush (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I know Gurdas Mann is Jatt (as he is distatntly related to me), we still need references. Thanks<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">S <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">H 11:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012
Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Jatt Sikh. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you continue to add unsourced information, after having been involved in the discussion and without consensus, you will be blocked from editing -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding information about individual people without having any sources to back it up is a clear BLP violation. Also, you should avoid edit-warring to add material that has been contested and removed - if you wish to add it again, get a Talk page consensus first -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Punjab Education in 19 and 20th Century, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Education in Punjab (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Punjab Education in 19 and 20th Century, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maharaja Ranjit Singh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

February 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Janjua Rajput, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. '' Much as I would like not to template a regular, you are still displaying many traits commonly found with newbie contributors and appear not to be learning much about our processes. I have yet again reverted your edit, which relies on a self-published, unreliable source. Please, please will you consider reviewing our basic policies.'' Sitush (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have just reverted another of your contributions. You should know by now that blogs are not usually reliable sources and that James Tod is definitely not a reliable source. I am beginning to have real concerns regarding your competence. - Sitush (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

AfD and PROD notifications
Hi Intothefire,

Back in December, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, which was part of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links to the templates), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at mpinchuk@undefinedwikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

James Mill Article
Your addition to James Mill has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Sitush (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sitush ,
 * Your message here does not specifically state which addition of mine has violated the copyright material on James Mill article, and I did not see any reasons or discussion opened by you on the Talk:James Mill page either ,
 * so I record here the exact chronological order of contributions by me and deletions / edits by you on the article,


 * that you are bringing on notice, could get me blocked from editing Wikipedia.


 * My edit of 18th Feb 2012 I add under Further reading  section Lloyd I Rudolph article
 * My edit of 19th Feb 2012 I quote from    Thomas R Trautman's  and provide a precise attribution citation   from his book : Aryans  and British India, Thomas R Trautman , Page 117 , Yoda Press ,ISBN 81-902272-1-1


 * Sitush edit of 21st Feb -You delete my Thomas Trautman content  Your edit summary says :Undid revision 477707221 by Intothefire (talk) copyright violation - I'll read the book & then fix it 


 * But on article Herbert Hope Risley ,23rd November  you provide content and  exactly the same citation from the same book different page

Now the difference, While both the quotes mine and yours carry exactly the same  book , author , ISBN no ... yours carries the weblink and mine doesn't. And this is a reason for you to delete the quote from the article ?post a warning on my page saying persistent violators will be blocked ? Whereas since you were perfectly well aware of the book hyperlink you could have simply added the hyperlink and let the quote remain ? But instead you made a conscious choice to delete my contribution ,not discuss on the talk page and to post a threat on my talk page accusing me of copyright violation which would get me blocked. Intothefire (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not need to open a discussion to remove a copyvio. The rest of what you say above is a complete misrepresentation of my actions, yours and, indeed, policy. How much longer is it going to take you before you actually read the policies etc that have been mentioned to you on so many occasions? - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Punjab Education in 19 and 20th Century
Your addition to Punjab Education in 19 and 20th Century has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Sitush (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. I appreciate you are trying to construct useful articles, but I'm afraid your approach is not permissible. You cannot create a Wikipedia article by just stringing together sentences copied from different sources, not even if you provide them as references. Yes you can (and should) use them as sources, but the article itself must be *written in your own words*. Please do pay heed to this, as copyright violation and plagiarism are considered serious problems here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Punjab Education in 19 and 20th Century


A tag has been placed on Punjab Education in 19 and 20th Century requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Sitush (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI note
You are not mentioned by name but the Punjab article above is among items being discussed at ANI. - Sitush (talk) 11:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Please sign up for the Tag & Assess
Dear IntoTheFire,

Thank you for being a member of WikiProject India. We have a backlog of articles to assess, over 18000 as of today. A "Tag & Assess" contest has been proposed on WikiProject India. I am writing personally to you to request you to please join us in this activity.

Considering, there are as of now at least 50 active Members of WikiProject India. I'm sure there are more, since we have more than 60 subscribers to our mailing list alone, and over 500 names in the WikiProject group. If each of even 50 of us agrees to sit down & assess only 200 articles, over the next month, that is less than eight a day, we can clear 10,000 in one go! That's more than half of the entire backlog!

Its highly doable with the power of numbers! But for that everyone has to volunteer to try. Don't be afraid or shy. We are there to guide you and show you how. I promise you fun, learning and barnstars/awards.

Check out the proposed awards - there is one for every 50 you do!

We will have to begin manually, at first. It is no big deal! It is all cut & paste, hardly any typing.

Later on YuviPanda will be creating a simple to use form in which we will be able to do this assessment semi-automatically i.e.
 * by mouse clicks, we can load a new talk page for assessment,
 * choose options by ticking in the tick-boxes or option boxes,
 * by single button press, our assessments can be put on the the talk page.

So what are you waiting for? :) Join us, we are good people, nice & helpful.

We have only six names here as of now -

AshLin, Animeshkulkarni, ansuman, Around The Globe, Anbu121, sarvajna

Please pitch in and help us. Enlist your name here on the India Noticeboard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Add_names_here_for_participation

Warm regards,

AshLin --

WT:INB
I have just reverted you at WT:INB. Feel free to raise your concerns at an appropriate forum which, as you have been told on several occasions, is most likely to be WP:ANI. - Sitush (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, so you have reinstated it despite getting nowhere last time. Your comments are on the verge of making personal attacks and in fact may even have gone over that point. Furthermore, you are engaging in tendentious editing, spreading your misrepresentations across umpteen forums as you repeatedly fail to achieve your object. The solution is to take it to the correct forum, once and for all. Surely you can see that this makes sense? It is your best hope of achieving what ever it is that you desire. - Sitush (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

James Mill
Hi Moonriddengirl Can you please confirm that the following construct of a brief quotation from a book which I am proposing to put on article James Mill meets Wikipedia copyright requirements, or that it could be enhanced .Since the quote is brief ,  I wish to put the quote and not a paraphrase in my own words. The proposed edit in question along with citation and weblink follows in italics viz: According to Thomas Trautman's account "James Mill's highly influential History of British India (1817) -most particularly the long essay 'Of the Hindus' comprising ten chapters –is the single most important source of Indophobia and hostility to Orientalism"  Thanks Intothefire (talk) 07:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm just one editor and my voice is not law. :D But, in terms of copyright, I would feel 100% comfortable with using that quote. In fact, I would consider it a fine model of content that should be quoted in accordance with our copyright policies and practices, as it is somebody's opinion that you wish to share and you are attributing it to him. WP:NFC lists as one of its good reasons for quotes "to attribute a point of view." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is fine as a quotation (which is not how you originally did it). Whether it fully reflects what the author says or is in fact a case of selective quoting is a completely different issue. - Sitush (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I've now reviewed your edit and I have had to fix it. Pure carelessness again, I suspect, but misquoting a source is simply not acceptable. - Sitush (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * From posting threats to block me for exactly the same content see this  section above, Sitush now works to advance  the same content. Remarkable first a threat then a complete u turn
 * Intothefire (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a u-turn at all. You are misrepresenting me, again. I said that your original edit was a copyvio and that I would like to check the source, given your past POV-y edits. Your revised edit is not a copyvio (although you did screw it up) and in the interval I have been reading Trautmann etc. His is not a common perception of things generally (he is a self-admitted revisionist) but he is a valid source. - Sitush (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a u-turn at all. You are misrepresenting me, again. I said that your original edit was a copyvio and that I would like to check the source, given your past POV-y edits. Your revised edit is not a copyvio (although you did screw it up) and in the interval I have been reading Trautmann etc. His is not a common perception of things generally (he is a self-admitted revisionist) but he is a valid source. - Sitush (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok please be happy, we wont call your actions  a U Turn :)
 * Intothefire (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We? Nobody else did, except you. You need to learn some manners, but I do not hold out much hope given your inability to understand how Wikipedia works despite your quite lengthy experience. - Sitush (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "We" is you and me discussing here.
 * You say your actions are not a U Turn ,
 * so I say ok be happy we ( you and me) wont call your actions a U turn.


 * As to your advise on my learning manners .....hmmm ….yes  there is always so much to learn . <br.>
 * Sitush your threats, deletions  drives for  bans and blocks   on me and other editors
 * provide a good example of the  investigation of good and bad  manners.
 * Have a nice day :) Intothefire (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for repeatedly failing to respect WP:AGF and making personal attacks on the motives of other editors, as you did at Talk:Khattar. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Given your lengthy history of failing to follow WP:AGF and of making repeated personal attacks against other editors, be warned that your next transgression will earn you a significantly stiffer sanction - possibly an indefinite block, or a topic ban from all articles covered by the above notice. This really is your last chance. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Punjab Education in 19 and 20th Century]
I have just read your exchange with RHaworth at User talk:RHaworth. If, once your block expires, you choose to write a new version of that article, please note that it should not consist of just a series of close paraphrases. You should use sources to support your content (and can include an occasional short quote, provided it is presented properly), but the bulk of the article should be written in your own words. Should a new version consist of no more than a series of close paraphrases, it may possibly also be deleted - the trick is to make sure that the text you write is sufficiently dissimilar to the sources you use for it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject India Tag & Assess 2012 Contest
Hello friends, we are a number of editors from WikiProject India have got together to assess the many thousands of articles under the stewardship of the project, and we'd love to have you, a fellow member, join us. These articles require assessment, that is, the addition of a WikiProject template to the talk page of an article, assessing it for quality and importance and adding a few extra parameters to it.

As of March 11, 2012, 07:00 UTC, WikiProject India has 95,998 articles under its stewardship. Of these 13,980 articles are completely unassessed (both for class and importance) and another 42,415 articles are unassessed for importance only. Accordingly, a Tag & Assess 2012 drive-cum-contest has begun from March 01, 2012 to last till May 31, 2012.

If you are new to assessment, you can learn the minimum about how to evaluate from Part One of the Assessment Guide. Part Two of the Guide will help you learn to employ the full functionality of the talk page template, should you choose to do so.

You can sign up on the Tag & Assess page. There are a number of awards to be given in recognition of your efforts. Come & join us to take part in this exciting new venture. You'll learn more about India in this way.

& (Drive coordinators)

Delivered per [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bot_requests&oldid=481419438#Message_to_take_part_in_Assessment_Drive request] on Bot requests. 01:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC) The  Helpful  Bot  01:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

User Sitush and J M Wikely
This guy Sitush keeps removing references to Wikely and calls him a plagiarist but never seem to give his source. It is hopeless having any discussion with him as it is followed by rather nasty personal attacks. Sadly his knowledge of Punjab and in particular west Punjab seems non existent. As someone with some expertise on Punjab ethnography, have seen any source which refers to Wikely plagiarism.

cheers. --WALTHAM2 (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Compare Wikeley with H. A. Rose, and read the "sources" section of Wikeley's book. Also, note that Wikeley was not a historian/ethnographer etc but rather a professional soldier, and that among his sources is James Tod - bloody hopeless as a source, that is what it is. - Sitush (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Is this still Intothefire's talkpage, or has it been hijacked.

--WALTHAM2 (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sarcasm does not become you, given that I left you a note explaining that I had responded here. Check the history & you will understand that I watch this page and, since you make unfounded statements about me here & ITF has not contributed since early March, I see no reason why a TP stalker should not comment. - Sitush (talk) 08:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And quite right too. WALTHAM2, trying to go behind someone's back to criticize them and then implying that they're not allowed to speak in their own defence is really not in keeping with Wikipedia's ethos of collegial editing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, since Wikeley is usually cited without a link, you can find the book here should you need to check things more thoroughly. The sources page is here, and you may care to note that Wikeley thereafter does not usually mention his sources at all in the text. The latter point means that we have no idea which of those listed is being used for which statements, although I did do some comparative work last year in order to untangle some of it. Of course, academic standards have changed over the years but Wikeley's book was always intended as "a manual to aid army officers in recruiting work" (see this paper) and he is very rarely cited by reliable sources nowadays (see, for example, this search result). In my opinion, he probably should not be used at all, except in articles about him and about Raj military recruitment. However, I have not gone around deleting every reference to him (yet) and I am perfectly content should you want to make an issue of it at WP:RSN. - Sitush (talk) 09:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

2 Most Prolific editors on my talk page
Contributors on my talk page Intothefire (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:UP. Basically, I hope that you intend to use the above analysis for some purpose soon, otherwise you should probably store it elsewhere. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletions of my edits by Sitush

 * Sitush Looking to your advice today it also made me realize just how many of my edits you have  deleted, on articles and talk pages such as these already .For example

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Looking back it does seem a pattern to hound and  harass me with deletions, threats and name calling to have me blocked. Intothefire (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for repeatedly making bad faith attacks against another editor, Sitush, after having been warned and blocked for exactly the same thing before. If you continue your refusal to edit cooperatively and collegially after this block expires, you should expect to be blocked for longer. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have a complaint about another editor, take it to WP:ANI or WP:RFC/U, and we'll see what the community says. Constant snide bitching about him will not be tolerated. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My response to this ban is posted hereIntothefire (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It was not a ban, and you have been told repeatedly what you should do if you still disagree with the way things have been handled. That you fail to pursue such a course could possibly be seen as a demonstration that you are here now merely to disrupt. If you continue to post this rubbish then perhaps there may come a time when you will in fact be banned. - Sitush (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Aliya Rasheed


A tag has been placed on Aliya Rasheed requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Eeekster (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This speedy was declined the same day by by Safiel: "I have declined the speedy, there is clearly enough credible assertion of notability to avoid speedy deletion under the A7 criteria." Intothefire (talk) 06:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:British Underclass
Category:British Underclass, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012
You have been blocked from editing for a period of a month for repeatedly accusing other editors of bad faith despite being warned and blocked for exactly the same thing before. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Chach Nama
It appears that you were a major contributor to the abovementioned article. I have been working on cleaning up and improving articles about figures from the chronicle; if you are interested, any assistance or even advice you could render would be greatly appreciated. dci &#124;  TALK   22:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)       Ya sure ..Intothefire (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

!!
You gave us consensus. I gave you the article. Our partners will do the rest. Time to go back. :) Susesisa (talk) 04:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Susessia ....right now inundated  with mundane planet earth clutter ... off-course I propose to contribute  to both articles and talk pages including this and others  :) Intothefire (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Turvayana


A tag has been placed on Turvayana, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. – →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  17:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to WLM!
You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Pakistan. This message was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Shin of Hindukush
An article that you have been involved in editing, Shin of Hindukush, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. ScitDei talk 10:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Decline of Hinduism in Pakistan for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Decline of Hinduism in Pakistan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Decline of Hinduism in Pakistan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:54, 18 August 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) 17:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of The Panjab Chiefs for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Panjab Chiefs is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/The Panjab Chiefs until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Binksternet (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments - Pakistan
<div style="background-image: linear-gradient(to right, #F5F5DC, #A9BA9D); border:1px solid #D1E231; border-radius: 25px; padding: 20px; margin: 0px; box-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em rgba(0,0,0,0.5);">

'''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

Merge Dogar/Dogar family
Hello, sorry to bother you. Im an informal/occasional editor here, based in Pakistan, I am a retired college teacher. I have today requested and proposed a merger of Dogar family with Dogar, as they both seem to me to be about the same topic. Have left a note about this on the Dogar Talk Page too. Since you have been involved with editing this article before, I thought it advisable to also alert you. Regards, 39.54.243.221 (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)Hilda Khan, Pakistan

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Punjab
Dear WikiProject Punjab Members,

The Wikipedia WikiProject Punjab interface has been upgraded to a more convenient structure. Feel free to use the new WikiProject to contribute towards the improvement of Punjab-related topics.

An Invite to join WikiProject Punjab
Peeta Singh (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Baid


The article Baid has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unsourced and incoherent"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Baid for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Baid is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Baid until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mccapra (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gadhok


The article Gadhok has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Fails WP:GNG. Never been able to find reliable sources supporting this in all the years I have been looking at it."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sitush (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lohani


The article Lohani has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Almost entirely unsourced,the tribe doesn't seem notable."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

"Khafif" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Khafif. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 19 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 21:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Sewa Dynasty for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sewa Dynasty is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Sewa Dynasty until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Sewa Dynasty for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sewa Dynasty is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Sewa Dynasty& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bhamba


The article Bhamba has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp/dated tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Transe Ænd Danse (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bhamba


The article Bhamba has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Entirely unsourced South Asian caste related article with no general notability."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Transe Ænd Danse (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Mutta (tribe) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mutta (tribe) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Mutta (tribe) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Boleyn (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Ratra for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ratra is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ratra until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. signed,Rosguill talk 22:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)