User talk:MatthewVanitas/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Khudabadi Sindhi Swarankar

June 3, 2012.

Dear Mr. MatthewVanitas, Greetings, Please see what has happened to article "Khudabadi Sindhi Swarankar". I do not how to put back the original article. The present short version do not explain the ancient view of the community. You and me had work hard to shape the article. I request you top please try put back the original version. Thanks180.215.181.122 (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Mr Gespee, as has been noted at many points, the article was prone to puffery and content that was not properly subtantiated. Yes, you and I made some improvements on it, but it was still not fully properly sourced, and in the intervening time more and more improperly sourced content was added. Please note the History tab, and you can see which users made changes to the article and their justifications therefore. User:Sitush is a very experienced editor on India topics, and his version of the article does appear to be far more conforming to standards than the previous.

As I've explained to yourself and some other caste article writers: Wikipedia simply cannot be allowed to serve as an advocacy site for caste groups. Though your interest in the topic is appreciated, it is very difficult to avoid a conflict of interest when writing about a topic dear to you. Too much of the article was simply written for KSSs, vice about the community using neutral, reputable sources.

My recommendation would be that you understand the article eventually had to come into line with Wikipedia policies, and now the material about the KSS is presented more neutrally and with proper sourcing. Should you now want to "lose" the version you wrote before, you can always use the "History" tab at the top of the page to review every single past version of the article ever. Though your earlier version does not fit Wikipedia's mission, perhaps you can copy-paste it from an older draft, and submit it for publication on a KSS-sponsored website where other community members would enjoy reading it? MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Baltic psaltery, Kanklės, etc.

Matthew: When I get a chance, I'll go back through and tag the sources used in Kanklės. The external links at the end of the article are where most of the information came from. I saw the new Baltic psaltery article; do you think Gusli belongs there? --Theodore Kloba (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I was torn on that gusli issue, and I'll defer to your judgment. I did add harpu to this list since it's pretty much just a kantele that was assimilated by the Laplanders (as I understand it). The kusle is a bit more of a stretch geographically, but it's used by a very related people that happen to be distributed further inland. Honestly I think part of the issue is I'm not personally read-up on to how the gusli is related, though I could certainly see it. A bit meandering on the topic, but personally I've wondered if the wing-shaped guslis are a kantele cousin, but the "helmet shaped" trapezoidal guslis are some separate tradition, or whether the whole thing is a span. In any case, I'm not opposed to adding gusli, just didn't know enough about it personally to judge.

I do think that the nares-jux is off on its own thing, but that's just my instinct. I think some other people online have assumed some connexion with the kantele, but it just seems radically different in construction. Whether that's the result of separate lineage, or just hearkening back to an even earlier ancestor, or just due to the limited tools/materials of the region, is a fair question.

But if gusli is generally considered among the "Baltic psalteries" I've got no objection. Thanks for the help in getting some footnotes into the kankles article, and I'll also try to glance around gBooks and see if there's more. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Any pointers ?

As per your suggestion dated 9 April 2012 on Nair article talk page “that the etymology section is too short to be a standalone section as-is, unless we can restore more of the etymology theories”. We are trying to brainstorm a consensus into how can we improve the etymology section under section titled “Suggestions invited for improving etymology section of the article”. Do you have any pointers  ?

VS Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

We are not "trying to brainstorm a consensus". That is a ridiculous dramatisation. You are wanting to change consensus, which is fine but not at all the same thing. - Sitush (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

User: Sitush, kindly note that this was intended as a 1 to 1 request for pointers with user:MattewVanitas on his talk page and not a mudslinging-conference.Interfering with such claims is shocking WP:AGF , WP:PERSONAL, WP:BITE

VS

P.S : I apologize to user: MatthewVanitas for having brought about this situation.

Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Badshah Munir Bukhari

Desr User:MatthewVanitas, I hope you are well. I am having trouble keeping the page on Badshah Munir Bukhari neutral, accurate and referenced. Another editor (whom a third editor accuses of being the subject of the article) seems intent on writing hyperbole and misinformation despite the sources. For example, he re-inserts the PhD title even though the University webpage linked on the page attributes to him MA qualifications and lists him as Mr. I have inserted notability and deletion recommendation templates. He has removed these. I do not know if the editor is the subject of yhe article himself. But the edits are contrary to WP:BLP guidelines. Is there any chance you could please take a quick look? Is there a forum this should be taken to? Thank you very much. Yours sincerelyGeorge Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya

i would like you opinion here, [1] .-- altetendekrabbe  15:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Photo montages

Your comment is invited here -AshLey ^Msg 09:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Your comment is invited at Talk:Higonokami, because you wrote the article in the first place. DS (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

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.

Ditonic scale (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Klamath and Modoc

Gaida (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Boxwood

Tetratonic scale (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Juang

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Sant Nirankari Mission, block evade

Hi Mathew I suspect this user is in effect this and this user who are trying to block evade. Thanks SH 16:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes this and this are same. User:bharat42. —Preceding undated comment added 17:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

So he's admitting he's the same person? Thats interesting. SH 17:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

SH, I've reverted again, but please ensure that you do not get caught up in a WP:3RR violation by reverting multiple times. There is zero benefit to a back-forth tit-for-tat revert war. If another editor is editing disruptively, and particularly if they are a sock, simply take a step back from the article and report them. Yes, it is unfortunate that their version might "win" for a few hours until their case can be attended too, but blocking a bad editor and protecting a controversial page is a far more productive way to go. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I realised that. thats why I backed off. In anycase I have reported him here for WP:3RR. Thanks20:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Matthew, would you like the author to know which are the points in the previous version of the article need discussion to refine and improve it further [Major cleanup]. Thanks, --Bharat42 (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Matthew and SH – Earnestly speaking, the idea was only to add to the existing page, may be in the shape of ‘spiritual ideology’ or ‘history which was missing, or community service which was untouched. I agree with both of you, that due to lack of familiarity with ‘WIKI policies’, some deviations might have crept in, but that can always be improved with your support, as long as the intentions are good. Being senior members, your support can always go a long way.

And one more submission, that Bharat42 and myself are not same, and there is absolutely no intention to do anything tnat is not constructive. I hope you will take my words. Thanks and Regards. --LoveMankind talk 08:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Sant Nirankari Mission#Improve this article

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sant Nirankari Mission#Improve this article. This is just a courtesy notice, since you are probably watching Talk:Sant Nirankari Mission anyway Peaceray (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Çifteli/a

I'm afraid I can't find any explanation of the difference - you don't by any chance have access to the relevant volume of Garland? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not; all I'm finding is mention of the instrument on gBooks, and generally under the "-li" spelling and almost exclusively mentioned as Albanian in its current form. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Raja Saif Ali Khan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Raja Saif Ali Khan 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raja Saif Ali Khan 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. Mar4d (talk) 07:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Jiizas: di Buk We Luuk Rait bout Im

I noticed that you were thinking of starting an article about the Jamaican Patois translation of the Gospel of Luke. It might be a good idea to broaden it to the translation of the entire Bible (which will be released next month). It may even be further broadened to an article about the translation effort itself (depending on if sources are available). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 19:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I started a stub based on the book (Jiizas: di Buk We Luuk Rait bout Im), but I'm certainly open to other ideas. Do you happen to have any good sourcing for the larger translation? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm also seeing some conflicting chronology, with one source[2] mentioning that the Gospel of Luke came out in 2010 and the full NT comes out in 2012. And then a 2008 article[3] saying it would take 12 years for the translation to come out. Thoughts on deconflicting these claims? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't familiar with the project until I saw it mentioned at Jamaican Patois today. Most likely, because the project began in 2008, the 12-year estimate was probably a conservative guess. Maybe they got more resources than they were expecting. You might want to take a look at this project report, which goes into some of the benefits the translation group sees in their effort. In fact, jamiekanbaibl.blogspot.com seems to have a fairly detailed chronology of the project's efforts. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 01:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

Hi. When you recently edited Kukri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Game Of Thrones (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) 12:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Kuravar

Have a look: [4]. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Huh, trippy! I'm trying to figure out where he got that huge block of WP-formatted text. I put a chunk into Google[5] and all I'm getting is stuff on the "wn.com" aggregation site. Is this something that was in an earlier version of some WP article and deleted, do you reckon? MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Kutch Gurjar Kshatriya

Hello!! Matthew. I just saw your tweak & comments in edit section - well thanks for comment well written article. However, your concern about name - Kutch Gurjar Kshatriya. I just did a goggling in Gujarati text both using word કચ્છ ગુર્જર ક્ષત્રિય [6] and also કચ્છ ગુર્જર ક્ષત્રિય મિસ્ત્રી [7]and you can see there are many news published with the name Kutch Gurjar Kshatriya. The second search of Kutch Gurjar Kshatriya & Mistri word combined also gave results confirming some news articles that both are synonyms of each other. For example [8], [9]. Other news items are also there like someone from their community getting best teacher award by President of India [10] and in news item dated 7/6/2011 saying new President by name Manilal Chawda of their community was elected at Nagpur, where representatives of 127 units of Kutch Gurjar Kshatriya from all over India were present to caste their vote - [11]. As Gujarati is my mother tongue I have not used Goggle translation. Further, when I created the article, the first online page about the community I found was [12] but it was later removed since india9.com is not acceptable source at Wiki. Also found one Times of India news item [13] - HC raps mgmt of Gurjar Kshatriya Samaj at Gondia saying that the Gurjar Kshatriya Samaj is a very old social institution with a membership of around 1,000, mostly former residents of Kachh (Gujrat).

I hope this clarifies your genuine doubt about article name Kutch Gurjar Kshatriya. Regards. Jethwarp (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 20

Hi. When you recently edited Idiochord, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sago palm (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) 11:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Rare edit conflict

Hi! I just got an edit conflict while updating the quality of the article Diana Penty in its talk page. Then I saw you just did that! That's so rare coincident, statistically speaking!!--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, it came up because of this: Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Zero_stub_drive_on_WP:INDIA.2FPP. Folks are looking to expand any stubs on the "Popular Pages" register for India, and as you also noticed Diana Penty is no longer a stub. Looks like we both tried to fix that at the same time! MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's how I also got there (from the notice board). What fascinated me is the very low statistical probability of such a coincidence :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Photos of Afghanistan

hi I am a new wikipedia user, and i have a flickr account where i have some grate photos of Afghanistan 9http://www.flickr.com/photos/kohistan/) and i would like to post them on to wikimedia commons. it will be grate if you could help me through it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khatary1 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Rumi

Hi , there is a principle of weight and undo. Thank you--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed with your conduct on Rumi. I understand that you mean well, but you're going about it the wrong way. Wikipedia is not a place for nationalist fringe claims. We have relevant policies for WP:Weight that deals with the question of extreme minority fringe viewpoints. By your logic on Rumi, we should re-write the into of Medes and Sumerians, saying they have been Turks, because the Turkish nationalists claim they were. It's just disappointing to see an editor of your experience and expertise, would ignore universally-accepted facts supported by the vast majority of the academics.Kurdo777 (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I also see that you, Kurdo777, aren't neutral because your claims are based on defending the article on the side of Iranism, which is based on the policy of Khodabandeh14. You need to develop yourself a bit, by putting your chauvinistic stance aside. We live in the 21st century, you need to be a bit humanist maybe. Nobody is supporting nationalistic views here. MatthewVanitas is just trying to mediate the lede of the article by clearing a few unnecessary and POV statements, ant putting the debated ethnicity matter under a different section. Your calumniation is really shameful, Kurdo777! Barayev (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be projecting some sort of image upon me that is not in keeping with reality. I'm not sure what the situation is, whether you're simply over-sensitised to such due to explicitly nationalist behaviour by other editors, or what the case may be. I made a number of extremely non-contentious edits that were summarily dismissed over literally one adjective and an attempted conciliatory sentence, rendering the lede of the article terrible and shoddy. There is simply no way someone can look at the first paragraph and say "this article looks good".

You are behaving as though I somehow dove in and typed "RUMI IS TURKISH!!!" all over the page, when the absolute sole introduction of the word "Turkish" I added was a note that Iranians, Turks, Afghans, and Tajiks all state some claim to Rumi's heritage. I think that's an awfully dispassionate description of the situation.

You're either confusing me with someone else, or so far into "defense mode" that you're interpreting any changes whatsoever as "attacks" on the article. I'm quite sure that any neutral editor would recognise my very positive attempt, and clear communication of that intent on the Talk page. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I see that you put the pressure on MatthewVanitas though he's actually neutral, and removing the POV on the side of Pan-Iranist editors. You can't be blind to see the fact that his edits are neither Pan-Iranist, nor Pan-Turkist. I see that he's like a mediator on the article which hasn't been so stable for five years. So, let's mention the debated ethnicity of Rumi in a new section called, Origin, from a neutral point of view. Also, here isn't the place to discuss this matter; go to Talk page of Rumi. Barayev (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Can we take a pause from the ethnic issue, as I've suggested multiple times on the page, and focus instead on making the lede intelligible? Folks on the Talk have (largely) been ignoring the issue of cleaning up the lede, and constantly citing non-pertinent arguments about ethnicity. I've explicitly said "let's leave the word Persian for now, but be more selective about the citations", and in reaction I get reams of non-pertinent quotes that folks (from both sides) are applying their own OR to interpret. It's most frustrating, and the immediate result is that the article continues to have a shoddy lede. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Matthew. Thanks for your help and I understand you have good intention.. but I have been in Wikipedia for 5-6 years and have dealt with constant Turkish nationalism vandalism on Scythians, Medes, various Persian poets, Saladin..etc. This is a country that everyone (even Kurdish childeren are forced) recite: "Happy is he who was born a Turk" every morning and has commited the Armenian, Greek and Assyrian Genocide. Imagine if Black children in the US were forced to say: "Happy is he who is born white". With the exception of Ba'athist Iraq (now defunct), I do not think any other country teaches nationalism at such a young age in the Near East. Many of these users showup as new accounts but they are all recurring users. Even a look at Turkish Wikipedia right now under Scythians or Saladin etc. It does not confirm to mainstream viewpoint. See similar pattern of vandalism in Saladin (who is Kurdish in mainstream scholarship). So the frustration is nothing new..although I am happy at least they are pestering about Rumi..I feel more upset for the Armenians who were wiped out physically and this simple fact is being denied by Turkish nationalists. Hundreds of millions (if not Billions) have been spent on denying that fact (so I am sure they can spend several millions trying to fool gullible users). Not a single one of the Turkish users active in Wikipedia can read Rumi and understand him.. They all constantly repeat the same cliche arguments which I have responded too. At least with Rumi..it is a cultural object and history cannot be changed. Heck, one in the end will need the Persian language to access him. As I said I feel more sad for the Armenians and Armenian genocide article..that has to deal with this cruft. Thanks --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think Matthew should take a look at this[14], to better understand what type of extreme nationalistic fringe revisionism is being discussed here. Kurdo777 (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, what are you waiting for? Cite it as a different opinion.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That is quite rude, and I think you are behaving poorly towards someone who is genuinely attempting to improve the article. I can appreciate that it is upsetting dealing with Turkish nationalist bowlderising of history, but you're allowing your frantic "defense" of the article to render the lede into unhelpful junk, whose legibility is compromised by poor organisation, and whose credibility is hampered by clearly argument-based over-footnoting as seen in the worst debate articles. I've put extensive work into dealing with caste-based POV issues in Indian articles, and had hoped to apply some of the technical skills (not even claiming subject expertise, just experience in concise ledes) to this article, but clearly you're unwilling to accept neutral help, and are too quick to see "a Turk behind every tree" to calm down and actually work to improve the article.

Fine, I'm struggling to maintain a massive watchlist of high-tamper Indian caste articles as it is, and I have better things to do than to waste my time where on an article where basic cleanup gets me labeled as a Turcophile by a group that, quite frankly, doesn't come across as totally neutral on the Iranian issue either. I hope you can actually put some thought into the improvements I proposed and somehow arrive at a lede that actually helps inform readers. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Matthew..I did not mean to be rude. I was joking with Kurdo777 with regards to the claim of one of the users (nedim) that all viewpoints should be mentioned. Note, many (if not virtually all) Turkish scholars also consider Scythians as Turks (mentioned in Turkish wikipedia)..but that is not the case in English Wikipedia and their opinion is not cited. Anyhow, if I said anything rude, I apologize and I hope you put effort to improve the article. I am going to put a Persian cultural section in the talkpage and a summary (#2) which is very short. I do not wish to spent time in wikipedia myself and have betters things to do. I have basically agreed with all of your improvements for the lead and mentioned Franklin and EI (which is a specialist source if you look at the link). I sincerely thank you for improving the article and feel free to comeback to it. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Again my apologies and the comment was directed at Kurdo777.."what are you waiting for.."..It just gets misinterpreted due to text rather than speech. Best wishes and thank you for your hardwork..--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to see my last response with regards to Franklin and EI (and checkout the link for EI and why I consider it a top specialist source with this regards). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Mathew, my main concern in this case is first and foremost, the integrity of Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. Rumi's background is of no consequence to me, but he was indeed a Persian, my stand on this is a principled one, and I have in the past defended a Turkish scholar's background when some Arab nationalist tried to claim him using fringe sources, and I also defended Nader Shah's Turkic background, when some Iranian nationalists tried to remove it. This issue is not different for me. Wikipedia is not a place for nationalist glory-hunting, that's all that matters to me. I know that you also care about Wikipedia's integrity. So I hope you understand my concerns. Regards. Kurdo777 (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I assume that your (MatthewVanitas') edits in the article Rumi are good faith edits. But you are pushing it the wrong way. You are willingly or unwillingly taking side in a dispute that does not exist as such among scholars. Rumi's ethnical and cultural origin is absoloutely undisputed. Adding unreliable sources and claims to the article does not meake it more neutral, it makes it even worse. It's like adding Holocaust-denying sources to the Holocaust article by claiming to make it "more neutral", although the vast majority of scholars - in fact: all serious scholars - do not doubt the reality of the Holocaust. Do you understand my point? Regards. --Lysozym (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Matthew..I put the three recommendations you mentioned in the lead. I agree with Lysozym above. Thanks. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Heated discussion on the renaming of this article. Maybe the article is not very interesting in itself but there is quite an example of a debate on the principle of naming conventions on its talk page. Everybody most welcome. --E4024 (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

Goud Saraswat Brahmin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sangam

Hamish Moore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cape Breton

List of Goud Saraswat Brahmin surnames (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pai

List of Khattaks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Karak

Theodore Leighton Pennell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Untouchable

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Puar/Dewas state/Dhar State

Hi, thanks for making the pages bettter, the only thing we need to correct is that, they call themselves 'Puar's. and all three families are Marathas who descended from the Rajput Paramaras. Keep up the good work. check this out - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcoda89 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Deobandi article

Hello there. I am new to wikipedia editing. In fact the above mentioned article is the first article I have ever edited. Please accept my apologies if I have not followed the rules, but I didn't really know how to edit or save my changes and hence kept submitting thinking there was a problem with my browser or login. Having said this, I am happy to see that the 'cash for fatwa' section is not visible today. I see no reason to leave something so defaming on an article unless an alternate view is also presented or at least an update is given. Secondly, there is the section on beliefs which states that the deobandis were influenced by the Wahabi movement. I feel this to be an incorrect statement. I also posted a link to an OFFICIAL SOURCE (i.e. deoband.org: about us) mentioning that THEY DO NOT DECLARE any such influence but it keeps getting removed. Can I ask why?. I also urge you to look at:

1) http://www.darululoom-deoband.com/english/aboutdarululoom/the_tack.htm

2) http://www.darululoom-deoband.com/english/aboutdarululoom/school_of_thought.htm

The Global Encyclopedia states that Taqwiyatul Iman is a translation of Ibnul Wahab's Kitab ut Tawhid. Please note this is not so. Secondly, on p63, the differences that are listed cannot be considered minor as they relate to many core beliefs on which the wahabis and deobandis differ especially on the nature of God's attributes. The deobandis have not been influenced by the wahabist movement. They have on occasion jokingly declared themselves wahabis, because Wahab is one of Allah's Ninety Nine names. It means The Liberal Bestower, The Giver of Gifts. They were claiming their closeness to God and not declaring their affiliation to the Wahabi movement.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ussy1977 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC) 

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

Agbon Kingdom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Urhobo

Cuisine of the Solomon Islands (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Poi

List of Pakistani Shi'a Muslims (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hassan Turabi

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC on Caste

Would you like to weigh in (even if very briefly) in this RfC on Caste. Your experience on Wikipedia will be very helpful. The RfC link is: Talk:Caste#RfC:_Does_the_article_minimize_the_centrality_of_India_to_the_notion_of_caste.3F

I have invited three other editors and announced my intention to do so here. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Requesting your comments (conclusive, if possible) @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Tadeusz_Sulimirski_.26_Rahul_Sankrityayan — 117.207.62.240 (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kallar (caste), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Toddy (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) 10:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Meher

Rane (clan) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ramnagar

Sawant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Wazir

Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Yazid

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Afghan or Pashtun

Dear MV

Just wanted to say a few things. About Afghans here is what Afghans actually consider or use for themselves: It is an ethnicity of people. That ethnicity is called Afghan. (e.g. Irish). They speak Pashto/ Pukhto therefore they call themselves Pashtun/ Pukhtun as well. Difference between Pashto and Pukhto is only of dialects/ accents nothing else. Indian usually call them Pathan. Those of them living in Pakistan are called Pakistani Afghans/ Pashtuns/ Pukhtuns. A person of any ethnicity and citizen of country Afghanistan therefore should be called Afghanistani, not Afghan. An Uzbek citizen of Afghanistan should rightly be called Uzbek Afghanistani not Afghan. A Pashtun of Afghanistan should rightly be called an Afghan or Pashtun Afghanistani.

To us Pastuns this usage is very clear, we follow it as we have for centuries and as is also in our literature. Pick any Pashto book and you will know I am right.

The problem is due to Westerners like you, to be honest you guys have messed it all up for us. I mean messed up all the terminology. Not only that, you guys keep on pushing for these wrong terms to be used universally.

I dont think you are going to listen to me, since most western literature is filled with these errors to the point that it is now an accepted wrong (/term).

However I would be interested in what you have to say. Thanks.

Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

To be blunt, the fact that essentially all the other articles on Pashtuns refer to them as "Pashtuns", "Pashtun tribes", "WikiProject Pashtun", and that essentially all modern academic materials refer to the ethnic group as "Pashtun/Pathan/Pukhtun" should be a good indication that your insistence on "Afghan" as an ethnic designation is a fringe view in the modern era. Feel free to take a wander around Google and GoogleBooks, and see how the vast majority of modern materials refer to the Pashtuns as a people, and "Afghan" as a member of the modern nation-state. The term "Afghanistani" is quite uncommon, and even the term "Afghani" has taken a backseat to the simple term "Afghan" for "pertaining to Afghanistan."

Yes, the article Afghan does note that the term was once more broadly used, but in the modern era the "Afghan government" refers to the government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, not to whatever international association of Pashtuns.

For the vast majority of readers, removing the word "Pashtun" from the lede of a Pashtun article and referring to them as "Afghans" is simply confusing and unhelpful. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you so much for editing the page for Susan Burke. I am new to creating articles here and you have been very helpful. Thanks! - Sasha

Sashaduds (talk) 11:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Meta marketing

I PROD'd this because WP seems to be getting a tonne of users who dump an essay and don't do anything. I'd be great if you could guide this user into making an article out of it. Cheers, Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 02:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Cost of moving house in the United Kingdom

Please either expand on your contention that the above article is written like an essay and is not in an appropriate style or remove the tag.Tomintoul (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse

Hi Matthew. You might want to consider becoming a Teahouse host! :) SarahStierch (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks! Thanks! Thank you for making me realize that I did something wrong for other users. Mediran talk 10:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

Ghodiyu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cradle

Hungarian Slovak Gypsies in the United States (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Gypsy music

Ridi Bendi Ela Irrigation Scheme (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mahasena

Yasser ElKady (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ministry of Communications and Information Technology

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Vimy Foundation

Tahnk you for your input. The article seesm to be getting nicely rounded out. How does one add photos. These appear under a Google image search so there should be no copyright issue. I have looked at steps to place things under ' commons ' but must be doing something wrong. Here are 3 pictures that appear on Google's immage search and would make sense to have. If you can help or provide feedback it woulod be much appreciated.

PM Harper receives Vimy Pin

The Vimy Pin

The Vimy Foundation logo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas Powell (talk • contribs) 20:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Whoaaaa... Appearing on GoogleImages does not in the slightest indicate a lack of copy issues. Nowhere near, unfortunately. So far as adding photos, it's a complicated legal issue in many cases, but a really good start is Wikipedia:Image use policy.

Some cases are easy: things before 1923 are often usable, works of the US federal government, items explicitly tagged with Creative Commons, things you personally made/photographed yourself (though some art pieces get tricky). And there are very limited Fair Use situations like getting to use a single low-resolution image that is exactly what the title says (for an organisation) or of a deceased person where there will never be new photos of them. For the Vimy Foundation, you can use Fair Use to upload a small version of their logo (as in, 300x200 or so, an image of such size that the size it appears on the screen is the size of the actual file).

The other photos are from what, news sources? Those are usually copyright. If the Vimy Foundation itself owns images (meaning a Vimy photographer took them), or an individual person you get a hold of took a photo personally, and is explicitly willing to release the photo under WP:Creative Commons, the image can be uploaded to Wikimedia, and a WP:OTRS form emailed to the owner for them to digitally sign off saying "yes I own the image and I release it for viewing under XYZ caveats."

Sorry for the long post, but it's a complex issue where Wikipedia is dedicated to legally staying in the right. Hope this helps get you at least started. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Barelvi

Hello MatthewVanitas, I hope you are doing well. I know you have followed the Barelvi page at times. I don't want to get into an edit war, or violate the three-revert rule so I wonder if you could please take a look at the page and its recent edits. In my view, another editor has missed the point about how best to deal with contrary views. Thanks and regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on my "Point Shooting" recon request.

Thanks for your comments on my "Point Shooting" recon request.

I thought this had been dropped.

I since filing it, have followed the directions of one of the editors/watchers who police articles, and included my inputs on the Point Shooting article re: the sub-subject of AIMED Point Shooting or P&S which I weighted down heavily with footnotes in support of them.

I may not like that as the best solution, but it's OK, and as editing can go on for years as I understand the situation. I'll leave that for those who come after me, as I will be dead in a few years as I am 77 and have had two heart attacks and a major surgery as well.

My purpose is to provide factual, historical, and documented information re point shooting for use by police and others that can inform/help them in understanding close quarters life threat situations, and not getting shot and/or killed in them.

One may say that is a thinly veiled argument for doing this or that.

On the other hand just detailing what is currently taught and done re shooting, is also an argument for doing that which is now done, and which has been taught to millions for over 100 years, and which has never been documented by pics or videos of ever having been used in a close quarters life threat situation where there is the greatest chance of one being shot and killed. Bizarre but true. And presenting it without scientific documentation, plus contrasting and documented scientific information is closely akin to supporting witchcraft via encylopedic presentation.

Not so long ago back in the olden days, presenting scientifically supported facts that went against the dogma and powers that be, was considered argumentive, and had real and dire consequences.

For example, in the late 1500's, the dogma was that the sun revolved around the earth.

So, when Gioedano Bruno suggested that the sun and planets were just one of many similar systems, that space was boundless, and that there might be other worlds inhabited by beings equal or possible superior to ourselves, he became a persona non grata.

Gioedano Bruno was tried by the Inquisition, condemned, and burned at the stake on February 17,1600. And his works were banned by the Church in 1603.

In 1633, Galileo Galilei was forced to his knees in front of his betters, and under the threat of torture and death, he renounced all belief in the Copernican theory which held that the Earth revolved around the Sun. His sentence was life under house arrest.

Things are not now as they were then, but suppression is still suppression.

Since you have an interest in military history, here's a link to my site www.pointshooting.com

You may find some of the articles and particularly those dealing with the chronology of Point Shooting and the design flaw of the 1911 of interest. There is also presented an article on the C96 which was used extensively by the Chinese.

This is a link to my latest article on the propagation of Sight Shooting which I consider to be "snake oil" for the masses: http://www.pointshooting.com/1aratten.htm

FYI: For the past 22 years, Police Officers have been shot and killed at the rate of one every seven days, and thousands are wounded each and every year. And the FBI, Police Trainers, Agencies, and Gun Makers don't seem to care, as most still train their charges to use Sight Shooting, even though it isn't or can't be used in most all real Close Quarters life threat situations where there is the greatest chance of being shot and/or killed.

I also am removing past talk comments from my talk pages, as I don't wish to "argue" this or that, or publish the misguided, negative and unfootnoted thoughts about this or that which one receives from the WIKI security forces. :-)

Thanks again for your responses. They are appreciated, and I thank you for taking your time to present them.

Best regards,

John Veit 5shot (talk) 02:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC) 5shot (talk) 02:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments you added to my talk page on Oct 1.

I'll leave them up for review, and will review them several times. I'll also research the WIKI how-to-write info sources again. Some times it takes a few tries to assimilate how-to-do-information and carry it out.

As to drama, some people in the world of the gun, particularly Sight Shooting zealots, take considerable offense at "those" who present info and facts on Point Shooting.

I have been one of "those" since 1998, and often times have been verbally beaten about the head and shoulders, and banned but not burned at the stake, by my "betters" in the polite society. :-)

Thanks again, and best regards,

John Veit 5shot (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)