Ghazanfaralvi

need your support Awan article

Dear Editors . I think that the limits placed on editing the article, will be lifted by tomorrow . I really think that Rawalpindi express is not going to respect others opinion and he will make sure to arrange the page in the form that there is no room left for other claims . As he already got warning for deletion so he have requested Averroist to assist him “reverting the article back to his edits”. (quote from Averroist talk page) . I don’t have objection on the number of references. But I am against his repetitions. For me Kalgan more resembles with Kalkan or kalakhan instead of Kalan Shah. Gowrarra , resembles with Arorra but gow-rrara do means cow herder in Pashtu while he insist to place him in article as Gohar Shah. For him Khokhar Awan and Chohan Awan got the names of mother tribes but I am of opinion Mr.Khokhar and Chohan married Qutab shah Daughters and the got attached with Awan’s as Qutab Shah’s adopted Sons. What is wrong if he married his daughters to local? When we all accept that he married his Sons to local girls .then it is also possible that he married his daughters to local Muslims. If the Title of Awan is derived from ( Ahwan (Sanskrit), Haiwan (Persian, Urdu), and Own (English), then this must be supported by dictionary page numbers. In the past he tried to keep his hold on the article and I guess in the future he will try the same. I need your support to save the rights of all the editors no matter they are seasoned one or new comers. Regards Alamsherkhan (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Awan (Pakistan) . Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: 1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. 2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Palltrast (talk) 06:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)”

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

Rawalpindi Express (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)