User talk:Basawala

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



1 2 3 4

Proposed deletion of Dama Dam Mast Qalandar[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Dama Dam Mast Qalandar has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Merge was refuted as not appropriate, a search for reference finds the phrase "Dama Dam Mast Qalandar" used often but not in conjunction with Runa Laila, fails WP:N and WP:V

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


Thank you. I dont know when your messge was posted but I am seeing it only today!

Though I became a user of Wikipedia long back, as a non-IT man, I was afraid of touching anything. Now I feel confident enough to add, delete, edit etc into the body.

However I am yet to locate guidelines with respect to adding of images etc. If a reply to that effect is possble I will be thankful, but I shall continue to learn on my own also.

Also I see now this page has reached above the 'stat' level and I am happy for that. Let me see how much more info I can add for further progress.

And thanks a lot for such an universal initiative with benefits for all. Now I see many more wiki looke alikes! May be that is how open sources all stand or what I do not know.

Keep up your good work, and my salutes to your local team also for Tamilnadu

Regarding reviewing of other works I shall take my own time, but thanks a lot once again for that. I will ensure that I dont spoil the good combined efforts of many.

Thanks and Regards Kalakad (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC) S.S.Mani

(My names appears as "Ssm...", with the first letter in caps. I dont know whetehr I typed it that way or what: How to make it as "ssm..."

In response to your question about image use, you can see Wikipedia:Image use policy.
As for changing your signature, you can edit your signature in your preferences page. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


"Southwest Asia" is more accurate and clear, therefore "more appropriate", and reverting a good-faith and accurate edit is against WP policy....take it to talk if you have such a problem with it. Instead of disrespecting my edit, that is A) accurate (there's no getting around that logically and even according to WP definition of "Southwest Asia"), and B) good-faith... And not vandalism. In other words, there was NO NEED to revert that so uptightly. "Consensus" or not. "Southwest" is simply more clear and accurate (many people look at Pakistan is being part of the Middle East!) "South Asia" alone (though technically accurate too) is simply not as clear, as Pakistan is NOT JUST in "the southern part of Asia"... I mean Pakistan is farther west than say "Sri Lanka". Also, just what is wrong with "Southwest Asia"? Why the hang-up against that, especially when it's only clearer? Archiver of Records (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I was not reverting a good-faith edit, since you yourself made the same edit after another user reverted your first edit, which means your edit was not in good-faith (although I'm not saying their's was). Also, no need to be hostile or SHOUT. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ spik ʌp! 02:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Important - Can you help[edit]

Seeing that you are in the counter-vandalism team! And that you have been specifically correcting Vishwa Hindu Parishad "alleged militant" references that are being deleted by probable supporters of the organisation not even having any accounts or probably having understanding of how Wiki-content works. Can you put a semi-protection on that page, there have been numerous attempts to remove these words! It does not present a world view! At least non-wiki members wont be able to edit that! :|

PranavJ 09:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC) User:Pranav21391 —Preceding undated comment added 09:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC).

Urinal ice[edit]

Google urinal ice, you'll see. DeistCosmos (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


Peace Barnstar 6.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For staying cool during this earlier discussion about Pakistan, I hereby award you this barnstar. Sophus Bie (talk) 11:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Accidental revert[edit]

Hello, sorry I accidentally reverted your edit the other day. This is only my second day editing now, so I'm sure I'll make a few more dumb mistakes in the near future in some form or another (I think I also undid ClueBot once yesterday, so I'll have to work on that...) Names are hard to think of (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


What is the Tamil name for Kulim?

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure, sorry. Maybe a Tamil speaker from Malaysia/Singapore could help? ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ spik ʌp! 04:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Sure! Lemme look one up :) WhisperToMe (talk) 05:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

VHP Militancy[edit] This article is actually showcasing the militant nature of the body. A reporter from "The Hindu" a widely read newspaper in India and in fact a very good and neutral newspaper, was present t the training camp. This gives ample of evidence how VHP wishes to mobilise forces in case of riots to take down other religions and create a non-state army.

"VHP has been alleged to be a militant organisation and is known to have organised trainignc amps in India where training with rifles, judo practice, etc is provided to individuals for self-defense in case a riot or natural disaster broke out

This is what we should be writing there!!!!

--Pranav (talk) 08:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Check the talk page - I have now even included reports from Humans right watch!! --Pranav (talk) 09:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

janmjat vs janmajat[edit]

Hi Basawala, I have reverted this in Hindi-Urdu to dʒənmdʒat̪. Since we agreed that dictionaries were insufficient evidence (they usually show dʒənmədʒat̪, but then they also show antakshri), I must ask you to meet your own standard for an academic paper proving dʒənmədʒat̪. If you do, I am happy to permit the change. If not, please leave it unaltered. Thanks! --Hunnjazal (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I am absolutely *not* using Wikipedia to make a point and resent this charge because it is simply untrue. This is the second time you've done this simply because I don't agree with you without taking the time to understand the point I am making. Once again I must ask you to assume good faith. This *is* in fact a situation which is schwa-optional, i.e. no change was needed. In that same source, you find both spellings (see the link I gave). This will also be true of dictionaries: (Umberto Nardella, left hand bottom of the page). However, Antakshri is *not* a place that is schwa-optional, i.e. it must be deleted. Janmajat and Janmjat are both correct. In fact, the most common pronunciation among Hindi speakers would be Janam.Jat, but that is regarded as a colloquialism. This is a perfectly good reference and I must ask you to prove with a reference that janmjat is invalid before reverting my edit. I know that you are incorrect in this and won't be able to. The way I see it your lack of understanding of how schwa operates in Hindi is leading you to make a pattern of changes which is flawed. Essentially, you're trying to make Hindi follow a Bengali pattern without realizing it. But these languages are different and sound different. You yourself admit in the Hindi wikipedia that your knowledge of Hindi is limited. BTW if you Google janmjat -janmajay -janmjay - caution: lots of shady content you will see an overwhelming number of Hindi pages written in Roman script as opposed to English references. This is because Hindi speakers will have a natural tendency to favor Janamjat and Janmjat/Janmjaat. I also stand corrected on Marathi (I know Marathi and Bengali like you know Hindi to be honest so am bound to make the kinds of errors you make with Hindi in reverse with them) - there are several Romanized Marathi pages with Janmjat as well. --Hunnjazal (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
One more thing I want to say. I don't know if you are aware of this or not. You are quick to take offense at even small disagreements but seem totally comfortable hurling some major charges. This is inappropriate. --Hunnjazal (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I stand by my claims. You reverted my change to yours, while stating yourself that my change was equally acceptable. This is a minor issue, so I will not attempt to argue lengthily on this. However, your timing and choice to bring up my statements about my non-perfect Hindi capabilities, which you have repeatedly reminded me about, is clearly in bad faith, as well; I do not have the option of assuming good faith if you bring this up very often. Also, Your logic here: "I must ask you to prove with a reference that janmjat is invalid before reverting my edit" confounds me; why can't I have asked you to do the same for janmajaat after you reverted? Because you have more authority on this, as my Hindi level is below yours? Seriously, you've crossed the line. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ spik ʌp! 05:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I checked Oxford and it clearly listed जन्म as janm. So now, you want to stall by getting "opinions". Would you mind sharing under which Hindi phonology rules does जन्म = janm + जात = jaat possibly become janmajat? This is clearly a stall. You were wrong (without realizing it). Now you know you are wrong but are stalling for further opinions. I told you already that this word is pronounced both ways because schwa deletion is optional in this situation. People from Eastern regions (Bihari language influenced) tend to say janma but in Delhi it will usually be janm. This is serious overreach on your part. Please go and learn Hindi a bit better and then contribute - especially in this linguistic issues. Note I never said you cannot ever contribute in this area, but I wouldn't set out and start arguing with people in Bengali language based on Hindi rules without knowing what I am talking about for Bengali. Please extend the same courtesy to others here. Sanskrit sahayoga *is* sahyog in Hindi (the dictionary says sah-yog, which is correct). Here syncope is *non* optional. Of course, Bengalis might do sahayog as you are veering towards doing. Your approach is correct for Sanskrit but is dead-wrong for Hindi. I appeal to you to stop being obstructionist, which is what your actions are amounting to now. Your edits in such situations are annoying because they are wrong, and repeatedly so. I hope you can appreciate that this can be aggravating for others. If I wrote in Solar System (with absolute, lily-white intent), and said stuff like "Saturn is a mid-sized star, Haley's comet is a planet visible from the Earth every 75 years or so" - how should others react if I bogged them down with argument when they tried to correct me? What if I was being disruptive and they told me to please read up and familiarize myself with this stuff and recuse myself until I did. Is this bad faith on their part? I don't think so at all. This is exactly how it sometimes feels discussing these things with you. You are more or less pure of intent (except this one last stall, which is really not on) but just don't know what you don't know. --Hunnjazal (talk) 06:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Basawala, please get a slightly thicker skin. I'm being perfectly polite to you. You're consistently wrong and disruptively argumentative about it. There's more right here. You say - "[dʒənm] isn't even a legal utterance in Hindi" - where in the world would you get this from? It's a completely random assertion made by someone who *clearly* has some unfamiliarity with the language. This is exactly like someone jumping into Solar System and saying - "Saturn is a star." Now what do you want me to do? It's bizarre, it's ridiculous, it's completely pulled out of thin air and it is totally, utterly, absolutely wrong. Why you do these things beats me - it really does. Please at least try just once to look at it from my point of view. You argue with me about something and throw a book at me ("I will check Oxford!"). Then you open the book and it totally supports me. Now you turn around and accuse your own book of being "pedantic". You reject dictionaries as authoritative sources of pronunciation. You reject the perspective of native speakers. Virtually every one of the rules you cite to support you turns out - consistently, verifiably and with references - to apply to Bengali and not to Hindi, whether it is the ड़/ड question, whether it is Sanskrit-origin schwas, or whatever. What do you want me to do? How do I deal with this - except to repeat myself and say "that seems to be from Bengali again - you don't know Hindi - please learn some more before you get involved in these things because you become disruptive and make incorrect edits." I also know you make lots of other contributions to Wikipedia which are very valuable (and I *do* value them). So, I try and be direct and appeal to you. You have a righteousness about Hindi which I think comes from you feeling that you "know" the language, when actually you don't know it to the degree you think you do. In Hindi-Urdu there is a proverb imported directly from Persian "Neem hakeem, khatra-e-jaan" (basically, half-knowledge is the deadlier than no knowledge - all Hindi-speakers virtually universally know this, maybe you do too - it's usually enough to just say "neem hakeem"). It really reminds me of Indians who speak English insisting that the difference between "v" and "w" in English is rubbish, and doesn't exist. Okay, let's look at a few things (I am educating you here, this stuff should be obvious to a native speaker) -

  • व्यवहार - think about it for a second. That second व has free allophony between [v], [ʋ], [w]. When it's a [v], people absolutely do pronounce it as /vjəv'haːr/ with total deletion of the medial schwa (I am surprised you've never heard this!). When it's a glide, then the schwa reappears because that sound resembles a vowel, so with [w], it's a soft schwa. It's amazing Oxford has managed to capture this and clearly mark it as an optional soft schwa (ă) - that is absolutely correct and new learners would be well-advised to heed it. In fact, there's an additional thing that happens too sometimes when the entire string of /əwă/ vowel+glide sounds gets collapsed into a single vowel : /vjəwăhaːr/ -> /vjoːhaːr/ - this ("vyohaar") is extremely common in colloquial Hindi. This is no violation of any rule. Again, you saw a case of pneumonia and identified it as arthritis. This is why I am asking you to cease practicing medicine without a degree :-).
  • Your assertion: "Hindi would invariable have [dʒənmə], since [nm] is not a finally legal cluster" is totally random (or based on some half-understood thing pried out of context and being force-fitted here). It is totally and verifiably wrong that "Hindi would invariably have [dʒənmə]."" Dictionaries are telling you that you are wrong, a native speaker is telling you that you are wrong, yet you are adamant with zero-proof that this is right. Based on what? Where are you getting this absolute conviction that Hindi speakers won't say [dʒənm] (which they absolutely do BTW - millions of people every day). How do I deal with this? Seriously? Does nothing about your approach here strike you as inappropriate? This made me laugh - "[dʒənm] ... would involve saying [n] and [m] one after another without any vowel sound in between and without a final schwa sound." Yes, indeed, [dʒənm] does involve saying [n] and [m] one after another without any vowel sound in between and without a final schwa sound :-) It's mystifying why pronouncing [n] and [m] in succession feel like such a miracle to you. Is there something about modern-day human physiology that prohibits this because, if there is, HU-speakers have managed to transcend it! They say this cluster and (CVCC) clusters like this all the time - "narm", "krishn", "bazm", "jashn", "rasm", "zulm". All have optional CVCəC forms also (which Hindi loves), as I have noted several times - but they are considered to be colloquial: if you use them, say, as a student in a school setting in Delhi environs, you will be stopped and corrected from "krishan" to "krishn," "janam" to "janm" and "dharam" to "dharm". I cannot fully fathom why this is proving so difficult for you to accept but the most likely explanation is that it is violating some deep-seated linguistic rule from a different language that you have unconsciously being applying to Hindi for a long time or you have become used to a dialect of Hindi which is distinct from Standard Hindi and likely a branch of or deeply influenced by a far Eastern Hindi or Bihari dialect.
  • You said "ksh is CC." Well, yes and no. It's a compound consonant and is basically treated like a single consonant in Hindi speech. It like x (ks) in English. What is box to you? CVC or CVCC. You could make either case, I suppose, but most often it is regarded as CVC. I guess you could make the same point with ख (kh) or ज्ञ (gy).
  • Your observation on Punjabi is completely incorrect. Punjabi speakers have a mild tendency to kill consonants and over-geminate the final consonant in such situations which is a very distinct preference from Hindi. So, जन्म becomes जम्म /dʒəmm/. Or they do the schwa insertion and make it जनम /dʒənəm/. I have never heard a Punjabi speaker say /dʒənm/ - where did you get this from? It's wrong. In fact, if anyone speaks Punjabi with this, it will come across as a heavy HU-accent.

Welcome back, you were gone for a bit there. I really do want to bury the hatchet with you, but you really have to hold your peace and listen a bit more in some situations. Not all critiques are personal attacks. --Hunnjazal (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Pushing our continuing tussle and repartee aside for a second, I noted the Bengali contrast with Hindi in Schwa deletion in Indo Aryan languages for medial Sanskrit derived schwas - it is a valuable thing to note that you've made me aware of, and which I now realize is pervasive (rachana/rachna example was backed by ref, so I put it in - but I realize there are zillions of others - I also now realize why HU- and Bengali-speakers consistently spell and say names like Moushumi/Moushəmi -> Moushmi differently). Sifting through the research here with fresh sensitivity to Bengali, I read that although attempts have been made to find an equivalent of the (ə -> ø | VC_CV) rule for Bengali, none currently exists. Are you aware of anything on this front? I would definitely like to add a section on Bengali if I can. What about the reverse of this Sanskritic medial schwa thing? Are there cases where deletion happens in Bengali where it would not in Hindi? It also seems like -य terminations may be treated differently. How do you say, for instance, आय/আয় (income) in Bengali? It's /aːj/ in Hindi (pronounced like the aye in "aye-aye captain") - is it /aːjə/ in Bengali? There's also the funky -dr/-tr endings, which are notorious for irregularity, probably stemming from a minefield of -d(h)ar/-t(h)ar words with which there would be acoustic collisions if you went in another direction (now here's a set that should gladden your heart, eh?). On the one hand, (Western) Hindi speakers will say "patr" (पत्र, letter) and even zealously slaughter the schwa in the English "scooter" to make it स्कूट्र/skootr (similarly, sweater -> स्वेट्र/svætr, cylinder -> सिलिंड्र/silindr), but then they'll say samudr(ə) and vastr(ə). If a learner says "look, a patrə", many HU-speakers will confuse it for "look, a patthar" (stone). How does Bengali deal with these? -Hunnjazal (talk) 06:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Punjabi name[edit]

Hi! has the Punjabi name of the "Peel District School Board" - What is the Punjabi name in text?

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Basawala :) WhisperToMe (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You've got email from Fowler&fowler[edit]

Hello, Basawala. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Lao help[edit]

Hi! I posted a request for Lao help at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Lao_help:_Seattle_Public_Schools

In case the section disappears, it says: "At

Can someone tell what the Lao name is for Seattle Public Schools? The commons at is at Commons:Category:Seattle Public Schools"

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW if you are familiar with Khmer/Cambodian script, that would be very helpful as I am trying to find the Khmer names of four U.S. school districts WhisperToMe (talk) 05:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Help with the Narendra Modi article[edit]

Hi... I have made certain changes to the Narendra Modi Article and have raised a blr sources request due to a number of unsourced statements in the article. I am new to editing Wikipedia. I was wondering why was this article in the clear for the past few months? If you can look at the article to see if the questions I have raised are valid, it would be very helpful. Thanks. --AlllllX (talk) 03:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi... All I want to know is that can I just remove all the unsourced statements and the citations with dead links. Do I have to wait for someone to post the citations? Does Wikipedia's stance on BLP articles not state that all unsourced statements must be immediately removed? --Alex (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hamari Boli = Hindi-Urdu Reinvented![edit]

Shield 00.svg Guardian of Hamari Boli
Sincerest gratitude for your invaluable contributions to Hindi-Urdu related articles on English Wikipedia. Forever indebted to you -and wikipedia of course- for telling it like it is.. Amazing how you never gave up and went thru all the troubles dealing with zealots. Bravo! You're one of the inspirations that led to the genesis of . Bohat Bohat Shukria! edge.walker (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Afreen Afreen[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Afreen Afreen has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

NN song.

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. Epeefleche (talk) 06:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Language-population update project[edit]

Hi. The 18th edition of Ethnologue just came out, and if we divide up our language articles among us, it won't take long to update them. I would appreciate it if you could help out, even if it's just a few articles (5,000 articles is a lot for just me), but I won't be insulted if you delete this request.

A largely complete list of articles to be updated is at Category:Language articles citing Ethnologue 17. The priority articles are in Category:Language articles with old Ethnologue 17 speaker data. These are the 10% that have population figures at least 25 years old.

Probably 90% of the time, Ethnologue has not changed their figures between the 17th and 18th editions, so all we need to do is change "e17" to "e18" in the reference (ref) field of the language info box. That will change the citation for the artcle to the current edition. Please put the data in the proper fields, or the info box will flag it as needing editorial review. The other relevant fields are "speakers" (the number of native speakers in all countries), "date" (the date of the reference or census that Ethnologue uses, not the date of Ethnologue!), and sometimes "speakers2". Our convention has been to enter e.g. "1990 census" when a census is used, as other data can be much older than the publication date. Sometimes a citation elsewhere in the article depends on the e17 entry, in which case you will need to change "name=e17" to "name=e18" in the reference tag (assuming the 18th edition still supports the cited claim).

Remember, we want the *total* number of native speakers, which is often not the first figure given by Ethnologue. Sometimes the data is too incompatible to add together (e.g. a figure from the 1950s for one country, and a figure from 2006 for another), in which case it should be presented that way. That's one use for the "speakers2" field. If you're not sure, just ask, or skip that article.

Data should not be displayed with more than two, or at most three, significant figures. Sometimes it should be rounded off to just one significant figure, e.g. when some of the component data used by Ethnologue has been approximated with one figure (200,000, 3 million, etc.) and the other data has greater precision. For example, a figure of 200,000 for one country and 4,230 for another is really just 200,000 in total, as the 4,230 is within the margin of rounding off in the 200,000. If you want to retain the spurious precision of the number in Ethnologue, you might want to use the {{sigfig}} template. (First parameter in this template is for the data, second is for the number of figures to round it off to.)

Dates will often need to be a range of all the country data in the Ethnologue article. When entering the date range, I often ignore dates from countries that have only a few percent of the population, as often 10% or so of the population isn't even separately listed by Ethnologue and so is undated anyway.

If Ethnologue does not provide a date for the bulk of the population, just enter "no date" in the date field. But if the population figure is undated, and hasn't changed between the 17th & 18th editions of Ethnologue, please leave the ref field set to "e17", and maybe add a comment to keep it so that other editors don't change it. In cases like this, the edition of Ethnologue that the data first appeared in may be our only indication of how old it is. We still cite the 14th edition in a couple dozen articles, so our readers can see that the data is getting old.

The articles in the categories linked above are over 90% of the job. There are probably also articles that do not currently cite Ethnologue, but which we might want to update with the 18th edition. I'll need to generate another category to capture those, probably after most of the Ethnologue 17 citations are taken care of.

Jump in at the WP:LANG talk page if you have any comments or concerns. Thanks for any help you can give!

kwami (talk) 02:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)