User talk:MatthewVanitas/Archive 14

To do
Desert golf? Desert golf? Why not add "Paint drying" to your to-do list?  Hope you are ok after the incident last year. - Sitush (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, though "*Fo Halloo, Manx nationalist group" looks promising... Though in all seriousness I might just try to get WikiProject Golf to write the other article since I know nothing about the sport; I just have some interest in xeriscape. Doing fine overall, just work got far, far busier, and I also felt like I was getting too personally wrapped up in the feuds, so tried scaling back for a while. I'm holding off on caste for a bit, though am attempting to hold down a few India religious group articles that have a tendency to suddenly revert to propaganda pieces. Other than that, all well. Glad to see you're still fighting the good fight! MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw to Fo Halloo entry a few days ago. That's the group which is fighting for the right to keep their own kippers and wants to sue Rolf Harris for nicking their three legs idea.  More seriously, I go over there sometimes - got some friends that live on the island & have in the past mechanic'd in the pits for the TT and Manx Grand Prix. - Sitush (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Dera Sacha Sauda
How does that matters that the reference is from the own website of Dera Sacha Sauda, when the referenced content also contains the photographs in support to the content, eg, the scan copy of any certificate from Gunniese Book of World Records is published on the own website of the organization, does that lowers down the importance of the certificate? Even after my numerous explanations that the controversies which has been proved false in the Court, and has been proved to be a plot to defame the organization also the content from some unreliable source should not be welcomed, also you are talking about neutral content, does only putting good things means someone is putting non-neutral content? if someone is putting some negative content, eg the cases that are now proved false is again and again welcomed by the volunteers, that is also a non-neutral approach, please help on this else wait for a legal notice from the organization as per the link given below. http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Fed/socialmedia-updates/Delete-anti-religious-posts-Court-to-networking-sites/Article1-786483.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajdba (talk • contribs) 10:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does matter that content is on DSS's site, even if they're referencing other information sources. Generally speaking (not accusing DSS of this, just explaining the principle) it is best to go straight to the original source for several reasons: a) the article subject may be presenting 3rd party info but giving their own slant through context, b) some less-ethical organisations might present false claims of 3rd-party support, c) having links to the organization other than the "External links - Official site" or a few appropriate footnotes to an organisation to highlight their direct statements, leans towards giving the organisation a "soapbox" for self-promotion vice a neutral explanation of the organisation.


 * Regarding neutrality: putting "good" things about the subject can certainly be neutral, provided that good references are provided and "negative" things about the subject are not obscured. To be blunt, this article has seen several "SPA" (single-purpose accounts) that have done nothing but make the article a blatant propaganda piece for DSS. Other editors have attempted to balance the article through better sourcing, and also discussion of the widely noted criticisms of the organisation. These are not fringe complaints: major media sources and academic papers have noted public accusations towards DSS. Whether accurate or not, such criticisms are themselves noteworthy in explaining perceptions of DSS in South Asia. As I have stated many times in the past: if charges were dropped, the dropping should definitely be noted, but that does not justify attempts to remove any mention of the trial, especially when it receives significant media coverage, and/or is discussed by academics as part of the organisation history.


 * If you have further concerns, I suggest you take them to the Talk page of the article, so that more people can see them. Though do please read the whole Talk page first to make sure the issue has not already been resolved. If you want to send me a reminder here on my Talk page letting me know you'd like input at the DSS or RRS page, that'd be great. I just didn't want to keep the conversation just on my page when it's really about broader issues about DSS coverage. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
 Assassin'S creed   T - E  - C  - G  - 15:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of League of Small Nations


A tag has been placed on League of Small Nations 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, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, 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 this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to 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 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. 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.  Horologium  (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Would You like to Help?
Hi, I am starting WikiProject Ravidassia. I would like to get help from people who are interested. You may sign up for the project on the []. McKinseies (talk) 10:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Boots and Saddles


The article Boots and Saddles has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No indication given of notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4
Hi. When you recently edited Mandole, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kabyle (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) 10:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Dera Sacha Sauda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to CBI


 * Esteban Laureano Maradona (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Toba


 * Fo Halloo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Celtic League


 * Oterfløyte (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Lure

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 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. 01:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC) The  Helpful  Bot  01:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Iranian rial banknotes
An article that you have been involved in editing, Iranian rial banknotes, 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. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 15:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Doon School
Many thanks for your comments on my talk page regarding Categories. I have noted what you say and will keep that in mind for future edits. Thanks :) Merlaysamuel :  Chat 22:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Blacklight poster


The article Blacklight poster has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No sources. not notable

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Scripts in lead sections
There was a recent RfC which determined that no Indic scripts should appear in lead sections, although IPA is acceptable. - Sitush (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, right, forgot about that one. I didn't weigh in at the time due to being tied up with many things, but I'm on board with the Project overall. It's somewhat lamentable that the issue is so contentious that it can't be done practically (as often the case on India issues), but that's where we're at. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for Advicing on Poikayil Appachan
Dear Matthew,

Many thanks for getting through the wiki article and suggesting. I will edit and correct this soon, and will revert back.

Regards, Bobby — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almithra (talk • contribs) 11:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

My last edit 'Kurmi'
Greetings and Thanks for ur feedback. Regarding Varna in lede i cant agree with u as i have seen so many articles with mention of varna in lede. moreover, i have not introduced varna topic in lede but just elaborated preexisting content with balanced info and accurate ref. regarding tortoise totem in etymology its not my speculation i just completed existing sentence from the same ref which was already there. Plz refrain from straightaway deleting well-referenced content just like that. plz use appropriate tags if need be.Jaychandra (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thorneycroft carbine
Thank you for your appreciation. I like digging in patents regarding some uniqe or historical firearms. Thing that makes me sad is that I failed to find on espacenet.com many interesting patents older than from the 1890s. Kekator (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

George H. Chirgwin
Thanks for the note. One of the things I like to do is create stubs and sub-stubs that others may then grow into articles as seems to be happening here. Best Wishes S a g a C i t y (talk) 10:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4
Hi. When you recently edited Yusufzai (Pashtun tribe), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seraiki (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) 14:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Furqan Force for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Furqan Force 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/Furqan Force 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 template from the top of the article. The Determinator p  t  c  17:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Lincolnshire Bagpipes
Hello Matthew, Many thanks for the tips on editing wikipedia articles and for the changes you made after my last edit. I am happy to discuss the Addison pipes further if you are interested. Al Garrod Contact: http://www.lincolnwaites.com/booking.shtml  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trombone-angel (talk • contribs) 22:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Mahar
Many thanks for your kind invitation to aid in revision -- salvaging -- of the article "Mahar". Regrettably, my near-total lack both of non-Western languages and of sufficient time would impair my being of any real help in your commendable effort. I shall, however, look forward eagerly to reading the result! With all good wishes, Firstorm (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

ayanosh
for the correction. Ayanosh (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Balakdas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Untouchable


 * Ghasidas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Untouchable


 * Guru Ravidass Jayanti (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Magh


 * Nihang (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Granth


 * Ravidassia religion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Indian calendar

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Shia Islam
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Shia Islam. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Irānshahr (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My edit summary in full:
 * "Firstly, anyone can "waltz in unannounced" and make any changes to the article. Secondly, you have reverted many unrelated alterations I made to the article most of which are obviously uncontroversial, rather than selectively removing what you say you question, thirdly, it is for you to articulate a reason for what you seek to remove and not for me to 'ask your permission' to make any changes." Irānshahr (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

If you question one of the [relatively small] changes I made to the article on Shia Islam you are held to articulate your questioning of it on the talk page and engage in dialogue with me on the matter. You will find me reasonable and cooperative in my approach. You will not achieve anything, however, by blanket reverting every contribution I have made to the article (this is considered insulting and has no logical justification). Again, if you have an opinion on something you are asked to share that opinion with me and engage in due dialogue until we come to an agreement on the matter. Irānshahr (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * First, it is ridiculous to make an absolutely extreme (and uncited) statement about being the "oldest branch of Islam" and "Islam began during the lifetime of Ali (in the 630s), and preceded the development of the four schools (madhhab) of Sunni Islam." and then try to defend a counter-revert by insisting I comb through all of your edits to find it. Secondly, this isn't about "owning" the article, this is about your unilaterally deciding to make substantial changes to the lede, and even first sentence, of an article with massive readership. Further, regarding your "obviously non-controversial" changes, you have provided no clear justification for why you chose to recalculate the numbers, why you chose the estimate ranges you did, etc. Given your obviously controversial changes earlier on, it rather impairs our ability to WP:Assume good faith with your "non-controversial" edits. In short, it is inappropriate to make substantial changes to a major article without any attempt to gain consensus or consult with other editors, particularly as issues like "oldest branch" etc. are by no means novel, and if they aren't in the article it's not as though the community never discussed the issue in the past.


 * As a minor sidenote, it is rude and passive aggressive to label the section "April 2012" and give a "Welcome to Wikipedia" warning banner as though I was some newb who was just unfamiliar with wiki editing. I did a proper WP:BEBOLD to revert your unclear and undiscussed edits. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree: the burden of proof should be on the one proposing substantive changes. As a reductio ad absurdum, if I were to waltz into Peanut butter and make major edits to the lede claiming it was invented by Martians, how would it be proper for me to counter-revert anyone and sagely advise them "let's leave my (totally uncited) claims for now and discuss it on Talk for a few days"? You've provided no citation, the statements are blatantly religiously sensitive and even the statistics are clearly an issue of controversy. The article has been semi-stable for a while, so it's not going to do you any harm to take a few days to go to Talk to gain support for your proposed changes.


 * Did you actually expect that you could make substantive changes on such a serious topic, with no warning and precious little explanation, and nobody would have any concerns whatsoever? MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It is axiomatic (and commonly known to anyone with a knowledge of Islam) that Shia Islam began during the lifetime of Ali. There is nothing "extreme" about stating it. A simple cursory reading on the subject is in itself enough to qualify the fact. To suggest that it is burdensome to remove a single sentence (or add a citation needed tag) it what is ridiculous, to use your characterization. When you accompany mass-reversions with edit summaries such as the one you gave, then it is apt to be interpreted as article ownership.


 * As for your next claim, you are categorically wrong. If you had actually investigated the matter (as my edit summary gave an indication of how to do), you would have seen that I was actually restoring the referenced figures which had been changed. I was restoring the referenced figures which had been changed. On your next point, I have in fact extended to you an assumption of good faith which in your approach to me seems to have been lacking. It is in your interest to assume and demonstrate good faith with me, as it is my interest to demonstrate good faith with you. I have not made "substantial changes" to the article. I have made a handful of unrelated minor changes. You are asked to specify which of the changes I made you question and on what basis, and we can then discuss proposals on what should be done.


 * As for your last paragraph, I did not manually label the section "April 2012" I served you with a general notice on article ownership via Twinkle. Experienced editors are by no means exempt from misconduct and being served notifications of this kind. Adopting WP:BEBOLD as a retrospective justification for your reversion strains credibility as it wasn't cited or suggested in your edit summary. I suggest assuming a stance of good faith unless you want to waste the rest of your day talking to me. Your attitude up till now seems to have been one of kneejerk reactionism and jumping to incorrect conclusions (such as not having enough care to check the figures in the table with the referenced figures, then wrongly assuming I was changing them of my own accord). To assume that the article was, somehow, perfect and accurate before my edits is wholly incorrect and illogical. The article is in fact poorly monitored and authored. This is not the article on Islam. Lastly, I hope you are not inviting me and other editors to revert all of those contributions you have made where you have not first given proposals on the respective talk pages. You cannot hold other editors to different standards than those you practice yourself. Irānshahr (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * First off, I don't dive into major articles like World War II or Australia and just start tweaking the ledes without any discussion whatsoever, so its disingenuous to claim that I'm hypocritical for not seeking consensus on major articles. It's not like Shia Islam is a smaller article where people only drift by on occasion.


 * Secondly, edit summaries such as "Restored the referenced figures" is exceedingly vague, and people in the past have used claims of "fixing" figures to mean they're adding their own personal analysis and calculation onto numbers. If the numbers have actually been tampered with (an ever-present risk and part of the reason we're wary of sudden changes on Shia Islam), it woould've taken you minimal effort to say "figures given do not match Edward J. Smith book cited, correcting figures to match Smith ref". A "I'm fixing things" is not very convincing when it's a tamper-sensitive area.


 * Thirdly, WP:BEBOLD is not an "olly-olly-oxen-free-o" chant that must be called prior to doing such. I saw substantial changes made to the lede of an article, and major tweaking of numbers, with very sparse edit summaries that in no way reassure of positive intent or proper caution. I check Talk, and there's no mention on Talk of "here's why I'm making some major changes" (which you may note I often do, and have very recently done, while tackling POV cleanups on religious articles). You took it upon yourself to add uncited claims about when Shiism began; are you saying there are not those who would contest it being the "oldest denomination" of Islam? And though minor you chucked a "[ˈshē-ēz]" in the lede despite no other spelling having such a phonetic. Again, these are undiscussed unilateral changes to the lede of an article, and it's pretty reasonable that folks request you discuss such issues without just jumping into an article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012
Please stop assuming ownership of articles such as Shia Islam. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''You have not given a rationale for reverting all of my edit s and this seems to be nothing other than harrassment and/or lazy editing. Your approach is not working in your interest.'' Irānshahr (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You are now being completely inappropriate. You have labeled your last edit summary as "identified as vandalism". It is in extremely poor taste to mark legitimate differences of opinion as vandalism. It is clearly laid out in WP:Vandalism that vandalism is just not a label for "things I don't like" but has a very specific definition. It is rude enough that you post automated warnings on my page, but it is ruder still to accuse me of vandalism for my objections to your, again, highly contentious claim that Shia Islam is the "oldest denomination of Islam." I have posted on the Talk page explaining my concerns, and am considering filing a complaint as this uncited and uncaveated claim treads very closely on pure POV advocacy of one religious sect over another. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I clicked the wrong Twinkle button. Talking of "extremely poor taste", it is in extremely poor taste to revert all (100%) of a user's contributions because you take question to 10% of them. This is usually done by lazy editors, because it is easier to click 'undo' or 'revert' than to remove the specific part they have a problem with. However, this inevitably backfires on you, because through saving 20 or 30 seconds performing the revert, you lose 20 or 30 minutes in subsequent argument. I have voluntarily removed the edit which states that Shia Islam is the "second largest and the oldest denomination". I will not re-insert that edit unless it is accompanied by a reliable reference. I have done this a gesture of goodwill to accomodate your fears. Irānshahr (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I would argue that when a series of edits are made, and several of them set off immediate alarm-bells, reverting the lot makes a fair bit of sense. To follow on the above peanut butter example, if it had 10 edits in a row, and two were pushing the "invented by Martians" theory and several others were tweaking the chemical formulae for the components of peanut butter, it'd stand to reason that I'd be skeptical of the whole series, vice assume the editor had made a mix of contentious and totally non-contentious edits. In any case, we're talking on Talk now, so looking forward to sorting out the "oldest denomination" claim. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Public Domain Image
I strongly support your suggestion here. I have seen your Category:Manuals and gazetteers of India‎ too, but, it is not my subject at all. So, I don't think I can help here, if you are an expert of Indian public domain images, then I have some questions! Best --Tito Dutta (Message) 13:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks
Thanks for your recent contributions! 67.80.64.128 (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Re Sado Khan etc
Hi! Just a small note to let you know that I read your stub/starting article on the above subject. Im sorry but I felt that there were a few basic problems and issues with it, factually speaking, and I hope that you dont mind but I have made some basic corrections and also left a detailed note on the talk page, that I hope will help clarify the exact status of the Sadozai clan vis-a-vis the Abdali/Durrani tribe. Do take a look, please, and v best regs, Khani100 (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Khani100

YSR at Reddy
You've just reverted the removal of YSR from Reddy, noting that it was unexplained. At List of Reddys, the IP did leave an edit summary when removing the person, and it is reasonable: the YSR article clearly sources the guy as being a Christian and has no support for him having ever accepted being of the Reddy caste. In view of his recent death and his surviving family, I reckon that keeping his name in there is tantamount to a BLP vio. - Sitush (talk) 05:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * List of Isai Velalar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to DK and DMK


 * Bhangi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Mohammad Yousuf


 * Dalit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Roma people


 * Dwivedi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Gauda


 * Sado Khan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Shah Shuja


 * Shadi Khan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Abdali


 * Ulla Katajavuori (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Rauma

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Rugby union in Afghanistan
Hi, Thank you for cleaning and improving the article Rugby union in Afghanistan, I am not sure why Mr. Ziar who appears to be chief of Afghan rugby (and so has a conflict of interest here) in not responding to your messages. He clearly seems to be ignoring our messages, he had read the messages once here , any suggestions what to do now ? --  Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  17:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I just filed an ANI complaint: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Hopefully a block of a week or two will force him to calm down and pay attention. He could be really helpful to the page if he would just listen to the advice he's been given.


 * Minor sidenote, do you speak any other languages? I got the Spanish wiki article made up for it, but more would be good. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * yes, I saw your edit at ANI i have responded there, I do speak a little french but that's not enough to translate the article to french. regards--  Ð  ℬig XЯaɣ  17:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Bathani Tola Carnage
Hi Matthew,

Could you please review my user page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Almithra/1996_Bathani_Tola_carnage before I move it to public ? I've added similar details at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste-related_violence_in_India#1996_Bathani_Tola_Carnage

Could you please review both and let me know corrections/suggestions ?

Regards Almithra (talk) 08:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Mukkulathor
Ref. Tamil Wikipedia article: முக்குலத்தோர் English Wikipedia Article on Mukkulathor Mukkulathor Iramuthusamy (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Muthanga Incident
Hi Matthew,

Could you please review the Muthanga Incident write up ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Almithra/Muthanga_Incident

Surprisingly I couldnt find books/articles written on this issue: might be my bad, will try again.

Regards Almithra (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Christians in Kerala
Hi Matthews,

I found the section for Christians in Kerala a stub. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India#Christians I would like to expand it. Please share your thoughts as it is a vast subject for me.

Regards Almithra (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Ramabai Ambedkar Incident
Hi Matthew,

Requesting you to please review the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Almithra/1997_Ramabai_Ambedkar_Incident

I will definitely introduce myself into India Projects and get assistance from others too:

Thanks in Advance Almithra (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * FYI - I put it in Wiki Peer Reviews - Please have a watch there too as I might require guidance for some more time till I learn the process. Thanks AgainAlmithra (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Sitush (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Minor change in your post!
Hi, how are you? Just want to let you know, I have made minor change in your post here. Feel free to revert/edit it. Best, --Tito Dutta Message 00:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Saini crap, again
Are you able to sort out this mess of edits at Saini? I could do it but right now I am soooo depressed with that article. - Sitush (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I gave the wrong diff. I meant these edits. - Sitush (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem the tippy-toppiest of the caste POV articles; at this point Salaria seems mostly to be fixated on trivia of landholdings and whatnot. My primary concern is keeping the article from going the "truly awesome Rajput Kshatriya Chandravanshi warriors and only haters say otherwise" direction. I'm not thrilled with the whining and nitpicking about the Malis renaming, but the Saini partisans seem content to hair-split it to death, which is better than just calling the Malis liars I suppose. I'm sure it's vexing in principle, but the lock keeps the IPs out, and Salaria's current fighting points are quite minor in actuality. I'm actually more annoyed that he's been adding "Saini-names.com" or whatever it is to tons of bio articles, basically backfilling in whatever List of Sainis would be from the opposite end. Is there some way to nail the dude on GS for having no evident interest in contributing to an encyclopedia other than uplifting the Sainis? That doesn't seem to be a kosher "just a niche interest" defense, but full-blown CoI, and what's worse with a name that appears to be tied to Saini hotly-contested Rajput claims. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree re: Salaria. I am unsure whether the sanctions can be used in this situation but will dig into their edits and see what shows up. BTW, I have opened an SPI regarding Thiyyar - something very odd is going on there. - Sitush (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I checked it out. Although Salaria did have a spate of such edits in March/early April, and I was involved in cleaning them up, there appears to have been just the one during the last two or three weeks. Have I missed something or could it be that the pattern is changing? - Sitush (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

MicroFinance Institutions Network
Hi Matthew,

Need your help in setting up the page. I've drafted a little information I know about the page. Please go through the page when you get few minutes and let me know your view. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Almithra/MicroFinance_Institutions_Network

Regards, TIA, Almithra (talk) 08:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Deobandi/Barelvi Issue
I am agree with your statement then please remove this "The movement is known as Ahle Sunnat to its followers" line from barelvi section because there is already mentioned that the movement is under sunni islam so no need to repeat that it known as Ahl e Sunnat again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saqibsandhu (talk • contribs) 16:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That's different; that's a cited point in the Etymology section. If you have a footnote from a WP:Reputable source indicating that "the Deobandi movement refers to itself as Ahle Sunnat", go ahead and add that to the Etymology section at Deobandi. Though, as I understand it, the situation is different since Deobandis refer to themselves as Deobandi Sunnis, while the Barelvis (and I agree that this is not factual of them) refuse to be identified as "Barelvi" and insist they are "simply" Sunni. So the two situations aren't really comparable. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Bhai go and read the artical that's also mentioned in Introduction of Barelvi along the Etymology section(either remove that from there or allow me to add Ahl-e-Sunnat in Deobandi Article) plus my Source was the official website of Darul Uloom Deoband so wasn't that enough reputable source ? Plus about Barelvis You are right they call and consider themselves "Sunni" and rest all Wahabi/Deobandi but Deobandi call themselves Muslim. I am also a student of Deobandi Madrissa but whenever people ask me i told them that i am Hanfi/Muslim not Deobandi. plus tell me how to edit the Box of deobandi movement on the right side of page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saqibsandhu (talk • contribs) 18:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to be understanding the issue. Nobody says that Deobandis don't consider themselves Sunni, we're saying that Deobandi is a recognised movement of people, and those people happen to be Sunni as well. You add absolutely no new information by writing "Sunni (Ahle Sunnah wal Jammah)" except confusing people. There are very, very few people who would read the page who are totally unfamiliar with the term Sunni.


 * In contrast to the page Barelvi, the sentence there is "The movement is known as Ahle Sunnat to its followers." This is significant, because it helps the reader understand that the group does not generally use (or even recognise) the name "Barelvi" for themselves, but claims (and I am not endorsing them on that issue) the term Sunni/ASwJ for themselves. Now, if Barelvi said "The Barelvi are Sunni (Ahle Sunnah wal Jammah)"then that would have to be changed as being again redundant. But that is not what it says.


 * Regarding sourcing: the website of Deoband itself is a WP:Primary source, and also is not a WP:Neutral source. This is not to say that they are "incorrect", simply that they are not a disinterested party. Quoting from the Deoband website would only be appropriate in terms of things like "The Deoband Institute claims over 100,000 alumni" or some such thing. It can be referred to as the "voice" of Deoband, but it itself cannot be considered a neutral authority, in the same way that, for example, the UK's Labour Party's website can't be considered a neutral commentator on the Labour Party. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

They are not very few but mostly people i must say don't understand the term Sunni due to barelvi majority propaganda that they think and believe that Barelvi are only Sunnis in Pak/India rest all are Wahabi/Deobandi. and this was my point of view to add Ahl e Sunna with sunni because general public consider Deobandi a new sect and out of Ahle sunna due to majority barelvi propogenda they confuse them with Wahabis that Deobandi and Wahabi are same thing.

OK i will also add a line same like that they movement is know as Ahl e sunna to its followers. but read the full article, many times they are replacing the word Barelvi with sunni there like and read they are using word sufi too. so can i also replace the word sufi/and sunni with deobandi some times in article ?
 * "the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation gives such estimates for the vast majority of Sunni Muslims in Pakistan."
 * "Like other Muslims, Sufi Sunni base their beliefs on the Qur'an and Sunnah"

Ok about sourcing i got your point, let me find the some other sources with sense of neutrality Thanks :)

Barelvi
Dear MatthewVanitas, I have no particular axe to grind. I never added the names to the article. They have "always" been there. It's interesting that both you and I have never taken exception to the inclusion of the names throughout all of our recent edits. It's also unusual for someone to remove a large and apparently carefully compiled section without first flagging up an issue via templates. But, as I said, I don't mind either way. And as you said, there should be sources. Thanks for chipping in. I watch this page because it occasionally becomes home to some very strident inter-sectarian squabbles. I certainly don't want to fuel one. Best wishes.GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Gorge, no hostility meant at all. I hadn't messed with them before because getting involved in BLP issues has not generally been my thing, except when problems arise. In this case, the other fellow is, as I understand it, quite correct per WP:BLP. The issue of lists is generally held to be analogous to WP:BLPCAT; we've been dealing with that a lot these days in "List of Foo caste people" and the like, where, for example, folks want everyone cool and awesome with the last name "Foo" to be listed. The general consensus at WP:INDIA has been that unless the article for that person mentions their identification as a Foo caste member ("born to Foo parents", "has remained active in the Foo community", etc) then it is a BLP violation to label them as Foo caste. I'm not messing with the listing of scholars right now, since that gets a little weirder because they're less labeling them Barelvi and more identifying that they wrote/commented for Barelvis, so unless that somehow becomes contentious I'll let sleeping dogs lie.


 * Note that the editor who removed them is being a little WP:POINTY since he and I had some disagreement at Deobandi and he pointed out Barelvi as justification (tough, WP:OSE). So just for context. So nothing at all personal in reverting-your-reverts, just that even though he didn't cite WP:BLP literally, noting "who says they're Barelvi?" is a very legitimate question, and as a WP:BLP issue burden of proof is upon the includer, not deleter.


 * Thanks for checking in on this, glad to be remaining colleagues in keeping the article clean(ish). MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Matthew, thanks for your kind reply. you are an excellent Wikipedia editor. I really applaud you for the careful and scrupulously judicial way in which you always deal with contentious issues on some of these pages. Thanks again. Best wishes.GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Baba Bhaniara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Congress Party


 * Dera Sacha Sauda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to CBI


 * Gazeebow Unit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to St. John's

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Central Mosque Wembley
Dear Matthew, I hope you are well. Sorry to ask, but I wonder if you could please cast your eyes over the article Central Mosque Wembley. I have absolutely no issue with this mosque, and actually have no knowledge of it whatsoever outside of Wikipedia, but I feel like I am fighting a losing battle in my attempt to keep it free of trivia and subjectivity. One user (Abir1998) seems intent on stuffing the article full of building / construction information and excessive descriptions of its facilities. I'll be grateful if you could take a look at both the page and the user’s editing and perhaps help me think of ways of keeping the page encyclopedic (tight, neutral, accurate). I have tried giving him advice on his talk page. Thank you. Again, I'm sorry to ask. Best wishes.GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Hindu movements and organizations
Can you see how this can be best split? It integrates too many disparate clusters into one, clearly the Bengal Renaissance, Kanchi Matha and Bajrang Dal do not belong in the same group! &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  03:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Your input would be appreciated
Please see Talk:Nair. - Sitush (talk) 07:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Pampady John Joseph
Hi Matthew Vanitas,

Could you please help in reviewing an user page for Pambady John at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Almithra/Pampady_John_Joseph ?

Cheers Almithra (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you please help to edit this page?
Hello Matthew, in the past you helped to edit the page of author Gabriel Wilensky and I was wondering if you could please help to also edit the page about his book, Six Million Crucifixions. Recently someone added a new section on that page that I think improves it greatly and addresses the references and other issues marked on the top of the page. Thanks! --Esautomatix (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Esautomatix

Mentioned you at WT:INB
I have mentioned you in this thread at WT:INB. - Sitush (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Ainu task force
Thanks for the invite. I put my name to the list, though I must confess I am not an expert on the field. I do movies, so I knew about some of the Ainu documentaries. One thing about the filmography: While a list of documentary portrayals is important, I think many would also be interested in a list of fiction films in which Ainu appear. That could be a separate page, or the filmography page could have two sections, one for documentaries and one for fiction films (the lede would have to be rewritten, however). Let me know what you think. I'll put this question on the task force talk page just in case any others have opinions. Michitaro (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have left a few more notes on the stub proposal page and also invited an editor who is quite handy with project banners to take a look. Agathoclea (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Agathoclea, thanks for the help on the stub. Michitaro, the help on the Filmography was great; I think for the meantime the easiest would be to just have a separate section in the same article, an "Ainu in fiction" section or similar. We do already have a Category:Ainu in fiction, which I made because another editor insisted in having some manga comic book in the parent Category:Ainu and it just didn't seem appropriate to have such a minor connection placed so high in the cat tree. I suppose we could cross-list the filmography in "in fiction" although that's only one aspect of the article, and maybe cross-cat it in "Documentaries" as well? I anticipate this Task Force won't be the busiest, but even little chips at a time are positive developments in coverage of the Ainu, so any level of involvement at all is certainly appreciated. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)