User talk:Roux

User:PrinceOfCanada/Sandbox/NavTemplate Fay Weldon That was quick-thanks! 86.136.31.188 (talk) 11:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Thanks a Lot You have been very kind to help me at various stages. I on part of my company is to float a tender enquiry for providing solar energy powered operation of a Petrol station. Can I have some material on the items and the cost estimation of the same. If any source on net, the details of the same shall be highly appreciated. Thanks and Regards, Sanjivdogra (talk) 08:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Hello Sorry, it was not my intention to be unpolite. I got to deal with so many rude discussions lately, and so many contradictory ones, that I really was eager to find out what really is needed or relly required. Everything was a big confusion. Thanks for your help. Warrington (talk) 08:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Thanks! Thanks for the reverts and reporting of the IP to AIV. He's finally blocked :) My poor slow internet connection was having trouble keeping up. Cheers! Apparition11 (talk) 08:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC) My first barnstar! Thank you very much! Apparition11 (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Bend342's user talk Hi - I hope you don't mind, but I removed your "only warning" message from this user's talkpage as I have already blocked them for personal attacks and vandalism to your page (repeated offence in short time suggests prevention required), and your message was superfluous to my block notice. Let me know if there's a problem with that. Cheers, Fritzpoll (talk) 11:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Edit summary Hi That's an interesting edit summary, it claims you "Reverted edits by MBisanz to last version by Gwp"? Huggle bug? AmaltheaTalk 11:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Wigan Warriors You accused me of vandalism yet the section about Bulldog Sports of Leeds is blatant advertising and should be removed itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.208.112.154 (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC) 3RR Yes I know, which is why I stopped reverting. I am aware of the WP:3RR =) Thanks for the notice anyways.--SRX 21:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC) in response to your response In your response to my article wishing to know about the continued deletion on the subject of doctor steel, I am not in fact close to this subject by any means, I have never met him and have only left a few comments of his myspace, he did however offer to give me information on himself, which has yet to be given. I am simply from an intellectual standpoint trying to understand the issue and dont appreciate being talked down to, my simple wish is to calmly and collectively understand the issue. Alfred Zwiebel Hi PrinceofCanada -- Just in case you haven't seen it, could you, please see my response to your message(s) under "ALFRED ZWIEBEL/ TALK" ? I didn't quite know where to write to you so that you would see it. Many thanks in advance! Cheers, Neidhart (talk) 08:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC) I have the page on my watchlist, but this is the best place to leave me a message. In the future though, please add messages at the bottom of the page :) Prince of Canada t | c 08:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC) So Sorry! Oh, gosh, I don't know where I am at the moment! I hope I am at the bottom of your PrinceofCanada page, where you asked me to write in future in the above message, WHICH I UNFORTUNATELY only saw AFTER just leaving you a long message on the ALFRED ZWIEBEL / DISCUSSION page! Could I, therefore, impose on you once again to read that message THERE, and in future I WILL respond HERE (if indeed this is the right place!? -- I guess I will see that when I save this message and see where it appears!) Sorry to be such a dimbulb, but I think I'm getting the hang of it... slowly! Regards, Neidhart (talk) 07:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Barnstar! The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar Just because i feel like giving out some barnstars :) creaɯy!Talk 00:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Martha Grimes Hi!! They mention the Cozy genre on the article of Martha Grimes, makes sense to link it with that page, don't you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.208.34.64 (talk) 07:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Pancharatna Kriti and Endaro Mahaanubhaavulu {{Talkback|User talk:Drmulgund|October 2008}} VasuVR (talk) 09:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC) RE: Just noticed Thanks very much mate :) I am feeling a lot better now, it's gone down to just a chesty cough. Thanks again! Garden. 11:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Your NPWatcher application Dear PrinceOfCanada, Thank you for applying for NPWatcher! You've been approved to use it. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if there is a newer release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Report any bugs or feature suggestion here. If you need help, feel free to contact me or join NPWatcher. —αἰτίας •discussion• 11:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Hungarian diplomat Excuse me, there is no vandalism involved in my edit. John the Hungarian was a Hungarian, and he was a diplomat, so to my mind there is nothing wrong with placing him in the category of "Hungarian Diplomats" so that people who are interested in this subject can find him according to this category. And even if you do object to my reasoning, it is still not a reason to accuse me of "vandalism". Blanche of King's Lynn (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC) It is very long since I last heard from you, so - unless you give me a convincing reason not to within the coming hour - I will restore the "Hungarian Diplomats" category to John the Hungarian - and that will not be vandalism. Blanche of King's Lynn (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Regarding Grexy I'm not entirely sure a CSD for nonsense will work, but if it does, I think I'll keep that in mind next time. I wasn't sure if it fell under a nonsense ("unsalvagable") criteria, though it is a neologism and probably vandalism. I've just to say - that was a pretty bold thing to do (in a good way), since I was hesitant to CSD it outright unless there was consensus - likely taking a week and leaving it sit there. Thanks. SMC (talk) 12:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Well, it was better than my plan - PROD, PROD gets deleted, then AFD to be sure I'm not being deletionist or using the criteria incorrectly etc. I guess I just don't like the risk of picking the wrong deletion method in case the article isn't considered pure rubbish. SMC (talk) 12:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Stop using tools wrongly If you're going to use tools, please use the right warnings (especially regarding redirects). I have no idea why you felt the need to have a second account for normal, non-admin work ...most admins don't even have 2 accounts. Stop and learn policies/templates please BMW(drive) 12:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC) I created a second account because I was sick of cruft showing up in my contribs, making actual substantive edits harder to find. You could be a little more polite, y'know. A few mistakes out of approximately three thousand edits with Huggle? Not a bad rate. Do try and be nicer in the future, won't you? Thanks. Prince of Canada t | c 20:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Nothing unpleasant/impolite in my above statement. An awful lot of us were really concerned about the huge amount of poorly-used warning templates, Biting the newbies, and a bunch of other things going on - and we were exasperated. There are at least a hundred bad warnings, etc. I certainly don't like your comment on my own talk page. Re-read the above. Look at the the comments that you ended up creating from other editors on the articles, and even here on your talk page. You went on a tool-based spree of (yes, I will say it) "vandalism", all as a very well-meaning attempt and being the anti-vandal. As you now know (I hope) there's a fine line between good and evil, and your first day was waaaaay on the wrong side of that line. Slow down a bit, and become a good vandal-fighter. BMW(drive) 11:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Alternate account OK, it is clear that while you're obviously keen to try and fix vandalism on Wikipedia, you really need to be far more careful with automated tools, especially when issuing "vandalism" warnings to users for edits which aren't clearly vandalism (i.e. this exchange, where you aim vandalism charges at a user who is clearly trying to make useful edits, even if they're not quite sure what they're doing). Also, make sure you read the context an edit is made in - for example this one, or here where the character's name is actually spelt "Suzie" (not to mention that it's a US-centric article anyway). It is very easy to drive a productive editor away with incorrect tagging, reverting and templating. Thanks, Black Kite 15:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Everyone make mistakes. Cheers. Prince of Canada t | c 20:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC) FYI Please remember that when assisting a member, do so in their talk page and not someone else's, like what you did to mine. Thanks. MikeM2010 (talk) 00:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC) ok thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Applebees1995 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC) User:PrinceOfCanada-HG You may wish to consider using {{User Alternate Acct}}. The one you have now makes it look like you are operating a sockpuppet, IMHO. J.delanoygabsadds 08:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Damn, I thought I had said "at first glance". I guess not. Actually, now that I think about it, I'm not even sure why I posted that, nor why I am still awake at 500 in the morning. Sorry for messing with your mind and wasting your time reading these rather irrelevant messages... J.delanoygabsadds 08:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Dilazak article Hi there....Prince, Please do one of following:- (1) Help me putting refferrences with my article, which I wrote a year back. Now foot notes numbers do appear but these don't work. I can't see footnotes also which I placed a few days ago. (2) I deleted the article to place it afresh with referrences. Help me in that. ........ Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilazak1 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Rideau Hall Hiya PoC. Ya know, RH would make a nice official residence for the 'President of Canada', eh? PS- I'm always hopeful, ha ha. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Perhaps; but seeing a Canadian President move into the former monarch's residence, would make me giddyish. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Dilazak Hi, Thanx for ur time. I'm 45 yrs old & don't have much time available to get into minute details of every program. I have improved my small article with refferrences. even I am pasting it here. Please.Please help me, how to put it on my previous page which has no refferences.... HISTORY OF THE DILAZAK (An Ardent Afghan Tribe Which Survived Through The Dark Spell Of History) The Dilazak are an Afghan tribe(1). They descended into the valley of Peshawar, now in Pakistan in Smanyid's dynasty from the Suleman Range, between 750 AD and 950 AD(2). They were the first in all Afghans and were Muslims by that time(3). They expelled or subdued local people of the Swati, Degan and Tirahi castes(4). By the time of Mehmood Ghaznavi, they had reached the Sindh River (also called Abaseen, Neelaab in old times). (5). They participated in Mehmood Ghaznavi's campaigns in large numbers under their leader Malik Yahya Khan(6). Later they extended up to present day Hassan Abdal (near Taxila) and towards the north up to Abbottabad In fact, accoding to ‘Aaeen-e-Akbari (The Constitution of Akbar (The most famous Mughal King of the then Hindustan (India)), there was only one tribe possessing lands in ‘Hazara Qarlagh’ (Including present day Hazara Division of North West Frontier Province(N.W.F.P.), Attock District and Hassan Abdal Tehsil of Punjab Province. (7). Around 1520 AD, another Afghan tribe, the Yusufzae, was expelled from Kabul, Afghanistan by ‘Mirza Ulugh Beg’, the uncle of Mughal Emperor ‘Zaheeruddin Muhammad Babur’ (8). The Yusufzae migrated to the Peshawar valley through Khaiber Pass and sought help from the Dilazak being the Afghan brothern which was granted to them(9). Later on the relationship between the two tribes deteriorated and a long war ensued(10). Ultimately the Yousafzae along with some other tribes (including the Utmanzi, cousins of the Dilazak) were able to push the Dilazak east of Sindh River under their leader Malik Ahmed Khan, after 20 years(11). The story of the Dilazak did not end here. The Mughals had fluctuating relations with the Afghans. The Dilazak were on the eastern side of the Sind River and thus totally accessible to a properly trained Mughal Army. Around 1607, Mughal Emperor Jahangir (Muhammad Saleem) once visiting Kabul in Afghanistan, left his large army under the command of Zaffar Khan Koka, son of Zain Khan Koka, and ordered him to wipe out the Dilazak and arrest the leaders of the Khattar tribe(12). Zaffar Khan Koka complied by the orders in true letter & sipirit and deported one hundred thousand families of the Dilazak to Lahore for onward dispersal in whole of India(13). Only a few families of the Dilazak survived. In fact, most of the Dilazaks returned during the period of Mughal King 'Shahjahan' and setteled around in parts of ‘N.W.F.P.’ and ‘Punjab’ Provinces in their old abodes(14). One of them was Saleh Khan who, alongwith his family settled in Sara-e-Saleh and 'Tir' in Haripur District of N.W.F.P. of Pakistan(15). Their families still survive. Few sub_branches are “Shamseer Khani’,’Nusrat Khel’ and ‘Anayat Khani’(16). Today they are found in the districts Abbottabad, Haripur, Charsadda, Mardan, Swat, Peshawar, of which all are in N.W.F.P., and Attock, in the Punjab Province. They are in the districts Shahjahan Pur and also in village Shahjahanpur District (Meerut), on Meerut Garh Road (Uttar Pradesh), Jalandhar (Indian Punjab), Bari Town (Rajasthan), Dilazi and other villages in Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal and some other regions of India(17). 1. THE PATHANS BY SIR OLAF CAROE P-155 L 3-7, P-167 L 3-9, P-175 L 28-33, P-176 L 24-36, P-190 L-33, P-191 L-2, GAZETTER OF THE PESHAWAR DISTRICT P-52 L 26- 30, P- 125 PARA19 , BABAR-NAMA BY ANNETTE S. BEVERIDGE PUBLISHED BY SANGEMEEL PUBLICATIONS, PAKISTAN, EDITION 1979. BABAR WRITES THE DILAZAKS AS AFGHANS AT NUMBER OF PLACES. FEW REFERENCE PAGES ARE:- P-250 L-29, P-367 L-8, P-376 L-3, P-377 L-12, P-394 L-21AND 26, P-412 L-1, P-413 L-33, P-873 L-45, PESHAWAR_HISTORIC CITY OF FRONTIER P-87/88, AN INQUIRY INTO THE ETHNOGRAPHY OF AFGHANISTAN BY H.W.BELLEW P-90, AAEEN-E-AKBARI BY ABUL FAZAL_TRANSLATED BY MAULVI FIDA ALI_EDITION 2007_PUBLISHED BY SANG-E-MEEL PUBLICATIONS_P1036_TABLE SERIAL 37. 2. TAAREEKH-E-HAZARA (URDU) BY DR. SHER BAHADUR KHAN PANNI_FIRST EDITION_1969 AD P 295-313, TAAREEKH -E-WADI-E-CHHACHH AND AQWAAM-E-CHHACHH (URDU) BY MANZOOR AWAN P 175-182, SAQAFAT-E-SARHUD_TAAREEKH KE AAEENE MEN (URDU) BY QARI JAVED IQBAL_PUBLISHED BY ‘LOK VIRSA_PAKISTAN_2002 P 22-23, “ ‘ SOLAT-E-AFGHANI’(URDU) BY HAJI MUHAMMAD ZARDAR KHAN_ PRINTED AT ‘MUNSHI NOL KISHORE PRINTIN PRESS’_’ Printing Year Not Given’ P 491-492. 3. AFGHNISTAN AND ITS INHABITANTS BY HENRY PRIESTLEY_1874 (REPRODUCED BY SANG-E-MEEL PUBLICATIONS _ PAKISTAN_1981 P-55/56, P 197/198, GAZETTEER OF THE PESHAWAR DISTIRCT P-52 L 26-39, P-125 L 1-31, P-141 L 26-29, TAAREEKH-E-HAZARA(URDU) BY DR. SHER BAHADUR KHAN PANNI_FIRST EDITION_1969 AD P 295-313, Race of Afghanistan’ by H.W. Bellew_published by Sh. Mubarak Ali_Lahore_Pakistan P 63-76, “TAAREEKH-E-HAZARA_TURHON KA EHD (THE TURK’S PERIOD)(URDU)’ BY MUHAMMAD IRSHAD KHAN M.A.M.Ed. _ PUBLISHED AT TUFAIL ART PRINTERS_LAHORE (PAKISTAN)_1976 P 64-68. 4. TAAREEKH-E-HAZARA (URDU) BY DR. SHER BAHADUR KHAN PANNI_FIRST EDITION_1969 AD P 295-313, AFGHNISTAN AND ITS INHABITANTS BY HENRY PRIESTLEY_1874 (REPRODUCED BY SANG-E-MEEL PUBLICATIONS_PAKISTAN_1981P 55/56, P-197/198,'Races of Afghanistan’ by H.W. Bellew_published by Sh. Mubarak Ali_Lahore_Pakistan P 63-76. 5. TAAREEKH-E-HAZARA (URDU) BY DR. SHER BAHADUR KHAN PANNI_FIRST EDITION_1969 AD P 295-313, TAAREEKH-E-WADI-E-CHHACHH AND AQWAAM-E-CHHACHH (URDU) BY MANZOOR AWAN P 175-182, AFGHNISTAN AND ITS INHABITANTS BY HENRY PRIESTLEY_1874 (REPRODUCED BY SANG-E-MEEL PUBLICATIONS_PAKISTAN_1981 P-55/56, P- 197/198, “’DA PASTO QABEELO SHAJRE O MENE’ (PASHTO) BY MUHAMMAD UMAR ROND MIAKHEL_2001 P 346-347”. 6 AFGHANISTAN AND ITS INHABITANTS BY HENRY PRIESTLEY P-198 L29-31, AFGHNISTAN AND ITS INHABITANTS BY HENRY PRIESTLEY_1874 (REPRODUCED BY SANG-E-MEEL PUBLICATIONS_PAKISTAN_1981 P-55/56, P 197/198, “DA PSHTO QABELO RAWAYATI NASBI SHAJRE O TAAREEK’ (PASHTO) BY SIAL MOMAND_1986 P249-250, TAAREEKH-E-PASHTOON BY SHER MUHAMMAD KHAN_TRANSLATED BY SARAJ AHMED ALVI_EDITION 1979 P 200. 7. AAEEN-E-AKBARI (URDU) BY ABUL FAZAL_TRANSLATED BY MAULVI FIDA ALI_EDITION 2007_PUBLISHED BY SANG-E- MEEL PUBLICATIONS_P1036_TABLE SERIAL 37,MUKHTASUR TAAREEKH-E-PASHTOON BY PROFESSOR HAMEEDULLAH_2004 P 515, “MEMOIR OF JAHANGIR BY THE LATE SIR H.M. ELLOIT_EDITED BY PROF. JOHN DOWSON_FIRST PUBLISHED 1871_THIS REF FROM PAKISTANI EDITION BY ISLAMIC BOOK SERVICE_EDITION 1975”, AN ACCOUNT OF KINGDOM OF KABUL (VOLUME2) BY MOUNTSTUART ELPHINSTONE_ PUBLISHED BY ‘OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS_KARACHI’ P10-13. 8 AFGHANISTAN AND ITS INHABITANTS BY HENRY PRIESTLEY P 100-106, GAZETTEER OF THE PESHAWAR DISTRICT P-53/54, THE PATHANS BY OLAF CAROE P-153 L18-22, P-173/174, TAAREEKH-E-HAZARA (URDU) BY DR. SHER BAHADUR KHAN PANNI_FIRST EDITION_1969 AD P 295-313, YOUSAFZAE (URDU) BY ALLAH BAKHUSH YOUSAFZAI_EDITION 1960 P 218-219, ‘MUKHTASUR TAAREEKH-E-PASHTOON’(URDU) BY PROFESSOR HAMEEDULLAH_2004 P 48. 9 AFGHANISTAN AND ITS INHABITANTS BY HENRY PRIESTLEY P-101 L39-49, P-103, P-221/222, GAZETTEER OF THE PESHAWAR DISTRICT P-54 L24-28, P-125, P-157 L9-17, THE PATHANS BY OLAF CAROE P-175 L11-20, TAAREEKH-E-HAZARA (URDU) BY DR. SHER BAHADUR KHAN PANNI_FIRST EDITION_1969 AD P 295-313, MUKHTASUR TAAREEKH-E-PASHTOON BY PROFESSOR HAMEEDULLAH_2004 P 49. 10 GAZETTEER OF THE PESHWAR DISTRICT P-54 L28-31, AFGHANISTNA AND ITS INHABITANTS BY HENRY PRIESTLEY P-103/104, TAAREEKH-E-HAZARA (URDU) BY DR. SHER BAHADUR KHAN PANNI_FIRST EDITION_1969 AD P 295-313, “’TAWAREEKH-E-HAFIZ RAHMAT KHANI’ (URDU) BY PIR MOAZZAM SHAH_REARRANGED WITH NOTES BY ‘KHAN ROSHAN KHAN’_ PUBLISHED BY PASHTO ACADEMY-1976 P 83-570”. 11 AFGHNISTAN AND ITS INHABITANTS BY HENRY PRIESTLEY_1874 (REPRODUCED BY SANG-E-MEEL PUBLICATIONS_PAKISTAN_1981 P-55/56, P 129/142/222, YOUSAFZAE (URDU) BY ALLAH BAKHUSH YOUSAFI_EDITION 1960 P 77-79/220-226, “ ‘THE KINGDOM OF AFGHANISTAN_A HISTORICAL SKETCH BY G.P.TATE’ -1911_THIS REF PUBLISHED BY ‘INDUS Publications_ 1973’ P 12 (FOOT NOTE), “’TAWAREEKH-E-HAFIZ RAHMAT KHANI’ (URDU) BY PIR MOAZZAM SHAH_REARRANGED WITH NOTES BY ‘KHAN ROSHAN KHAN’_ PUBLISHED BY PASHTO ACADEMY-1976 P 83-570”, ‘HUND-AFTER THE GREAT FLOODS(URDU) BY ISLAH PUBLICATIONS_P 58. 12 AFGHANISTAN AND ITS INHABITANTS P-198 L40-47, GAZETTEER OF THE ATTOCK DISTRICT P-91 L37-41, YOUSAFZAE (URDU) BY ALLAH BAKHUSH YOUSAFZAI_EDITION 1960 P 77-79, “MEMOIR OF JAHANGIR BY THE LATE SIR H.M. ELLOIT”, TAAREEKH-E-HINDUSTAN_SALTANAT-E-ISLAMIA KA BIAN (HISTORH OF HINDUSTAN_DETAILS OF ISLAMIC KINGDOM) (URDU)-VOLUME 6_’KARNAMA-E-JAHANGIRI’ (DEEDS OF JAHANGIR) P 52. 13 GAZETTEER OF THE ATTOCK DISTRICT P-91 L37-41, AFGHANISTAN AND ITS INHABITANTS P-198 L40-47, “TAAREEKH-E-HAZARA_TURHON KA EHD (THE TURK’S PERIOD)(URDU)’ BY MUHAMMAD IRSHAD KHAN M.A.M.Ed. _ PUBLISHED AT TUFAIL ART PRINTERS_LAHORE (PAKISTAN)_1976 P 54, HAYAT-E-AFGHANI BY MUHAMMAD HAYAT KHAN_1865 P 371-373. 14 Punjabi Musalmans P-152, TAAREEKH-E-HAZARA (URDU)BY DR. SHER BAHADUR KHAN PANNI_FIRST EDITION_1969 AD P 295-313 15 TAAREEKH-E-HAZARA (URDU) BY DR. SHER BAHADUR KHAN PANNI_FIRST EDITION_1969 AD P 295-313. 16 TAAREEKH-E-HAZARA (URDU) BY DR. SHER BAHADUR KHAN PANNI_FIRST EDITION_1969 AD P 295-313. 17 “‘There is said to be a colony of about four hundred families of them settled in Dholpur-‘Race of Afghanistan’ by H.W. Bellew_published by Sh. Mubarak Ali_Lahore_Pakistan P 68’”,’TAAREEKH-E-HAZARA (URDU) BY DR. SHER BAHADUR KHAN PANNI_FIRST EDITION_1969 AD P 295-313, “ ‘ SOLAT-E-AFGHANI’(URDU) BY HAJI MUHAMMAD ZARDAR KHAN_ PRINTED AT ‘MUNSHI NOL KISHORE PRINTIN PRESS’_’ Printing Year Not Given’ P 491-492-‘’………it is so guessed that this tribe is living in ‘bari town’ of dholpur area since then (after expulsion by jahangir), but it is not proved by any book. Here their leader is sardar ahmed khan haji and their lands are from the king, out of which only rs. 3000/- worth of property is left..(translated from urdu)….”. Sorry for bad manners.... Dilazak1@gmail/hotmail/yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilazak1 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Hi, Thanx for ur time. I'm 45 yrs old & don't have much time available to get into minute details of every program. I have improved my small article with refferrences. even I am pasting it here. Please.Please help me, how to put it on my previous page which has no refferences.... HISTORY OF THE DILAZAK (An Ardent Afghan Tribe Which Survived Through The Dark Spell Of History) The Dilazak are an Afghan tribe(1). They descended into the valley of Peshawar, now in Pakistan in Smanyid's dynasty from the Suleman Range, between 750 AD and 950 AD(2). They were the first in all Afghans and were Muslims by that time(3). They expelled or subdued local people of the Swati, Degan and Tirahi castes(4). By the time of Mehmood Ghaznavi, they had reached the Sindh River (also called Abaseen, Neelaab in old times). (5). They participated in Mehmood Ghaznavi's campaigns in large numbers under their leader Malik Yahya Khan(6). Later they extended up to present day Hassan Abdal (near Taxila) and towards the north up to Abbottabad In fact, accoding to ‘Aaeen-e-Akbari (The Constitution of Akbar (The most famous Mughal King of the then Hindustan (India)), there was only one tribe possessing lands in ‘Hazara Qarlagh’ (Including present day Hazara Division of North West Frontier Province(N.W.F.P.), Attock District and Hassan Abdal Tehsil of Punjab Province. (7). Around 1520 AD, another Afghan tribe, the Yusufzae, was expelled from Kabul, Afghanistan by ‘Mirza Ulugh Beg’, the uncle of Mughal Emperor ‘Zaheeruddin Muhammad Babur’ (8). The Yusufzae migrated to the Peshawar valley through Khaiber Pass and sought help from the Dilazak being the Afghan brothern which was granted to them(9). Later on the relationship between the two tribes deteriorated and a long war ensued(10). Ultimately the Yousafzae along with some other tribes (including the Utmanzi, cousins of the Dilazak) were able to push the Dilazak east of Sindh River under their leader Malik Ahmed Khan, after 20 years(11). The story of the Dilazak did not end here. The Mughals had fluctuating relations with the Afghans. The Dilazak were on the eastern side of the Sind River and thus totally accessible to a properly trained Mughal Army. Around 1607, Mughal Emperor Jahangir (Muhammad Saleem) once visiting Kabul in Afghanistan, left his large army under the command of Zaffar Khan Koka, son of Zain Khan Koka, and ordered him to wipe out the Dilazak and arrest the leaders of the Khattar tribe(12). Zaffar Khan Koka complied by the orders in true letter & sipirit and deported one hundred thousand families of the Dilazak to Lahore for onward dispersal in whole of India(13). Only a few families of the Dilazak survived. In fact, most of the Dilazaks returned during the period of Mughal King 'Shahjahan' and setteled around in parts of ‘N.W.F.P.’ and ‘Punjab’ Provinces in their old abodes(14). One of them was Saleh Khan who, alongwith his family settled in Sara-e-Saleh and 'Tir' in Haripur District of N.W.F.P. of Pakistan(15). Their families still survive. Few sub_branches are “Shamseer Khani’,’Nusrat Khel’ and ‘Anayat Khani’(16). Today they are found in the districts Abbottabad, Haripur, Charsadda, Mardan, Swat, Peshawar, of which all are in N.W.F.P., and Attock, in the Punjab Province. They are in the districts Shahjahan Pur and also in village Shahjahanpur District (Meerut), on Meerut Garh Road (Uttar Pradesh), Jalandhar (Indian Punjab), Bari Town (Rajasthan), Dilazi and other villages in Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal and some other regions of India(17). 1. THE PATHANS BY SIR OLAF CAROE P-155 L 3-7, P-167 L 3-9, P-175 L 28-33, P-176 L 24-36, P-190 L-33, P-191 L-2, GAZETTER OF THE PESHAWAR DISTRICT P-52 L 26- 30, P- 125 PARA19 , BABAR-NAMA BY ANNETTE S. BEVERIDGE PUBLISHED BY SANGEMEEL PUBLICATIONS, PAKISTAN, EDITION 1979. BABAR WRITES THE DILAZAKS AS AFGHANS AT NUMBER OF PLACES. FEW REFERENCE PAGES ARE:- P-250 L-29, P-367 L-8, P-376 L-3, P-377 L-12, P-394 L-21AND 26, P-412 L-1, P-413 L-33, P-873 L-45, PESHAWAR_HISTORIC CITY OF FRONTIER P-87/88, AN INQUIRY INTO THE ETHNOGRAPHY OF AFGHANISTAN BY H.W.BELLEW P-90, AAEEN-E-AKBARI BY ABUL FAZAL_TRANSLATED BY MAULVI FIDA ALI_EDITION 2007_PUBLISHED BY SANG-E-MEEL PUBLICATIONS_P1036_TABLE SERIAL 37. 2. TAAREEKH-E-HAZARA (URDU) BY DR. SHER BAHADUR KHAN PANNI_FIRST EDITION_1969 AD P 295-313, TAAREEKH -E-WADI-E-CHHACHH AND AQWAAM-E-CHHACHH (URDU) BY MANZOOR AWAN P 175-182, SAQAFAT-E-SARHUD_TAAREEKH KE AAEENE MEN (URDU) BY QARI JAVED IQBAL_PUBLISHED BY ‘LOK VIRSA_PAKISTAN_2002 P 22-23, “ ‘ SOLAT-E-AFGHANI’(URDU) BY HAJI MUHAMMAD ZARDAR KHAN_ PRINTED AT ‘MUNSHI NOL KISHORE PRINTIN PRESS’_’ Printing Year Not Given’ P 491-492. 3. AFGHNISTAN AND ITS INHABITANTS BY HENRY PRIESTLEY_1874 (REPRODUCED BY SANG-E-MEEL PUBLICATIONS _ PAKISTAN_1981 P-55/56, P 197/198, GAZETTEER OF THE PESHAWAR DISTIRCT P-52 L 26-39, P-125 L 1-31, P-141 L 26-29, TAAREEKH-E-HAZARA(URDU) BY DR. SHER BAHADUR KHAN PANNI_FIRST EDITION_1969 AD P 295-313, Race of Afghanistan’ by H.W. Bellew_published by Sh. Mubarak Ali_Lahore_Pakistan P 63-76, “TAAREEKH-E-HAZARA_TURHON KA EHD (THE TURK’S PERIOD)(URDU)’ BY MUHAMMAD IRSHAD KHAN M.A.M.Ed. _ PUBLISHED AT TUFAIL ART PRINTERS_LAHORE (PAKISTAN)_1976 P 64-68. 4. TAAREEKH-E-HAZARA (URDU) BY DR. SHER BAHADUR KHAN PANNI_FIRST EDITION_1969 AD P 295-313, AFGHNISTAN AND ITS INHABITANTS BY HENRY PRIESTLEY_1874 (REPRODUCED BY SANG-E-MEEL PUBLICATIONS_PAKISTAN_1981P 55/56, P-197/198,'Races of Afghanistan’ by H.W. Bellew_published by Sh. Mubarak Ali_Lahore_Pakistan P 63-76. 5. TAAREEKH-E-HAZARA (URDU) BY DR. SHER BAHADUR KHAN PANNI_FIRST EDITION_1969 AD P 295-313, TAAREEKH-E-WADI-E-CHHACHH AND AQWAAM-E-CHHACHH (URDU) BY MANZOOR AWAN P 175-182, AFGHNISTAN AND ITS INHABITANTS BY HENRY PRIESTLEY_1874 (REPRODUCED BY SANG-E-MEEL PUBLICATIONS_PAKISTAN_1981 P-55/56, P- 197/198, “’DA PASTO QABEELO SHAJRE O MENE’ (PASHTO) BY MUHAMMAD UMAR ROND MIAKHEL_2001 P 346-347”. 6 AFGHANISTAN AND ITS INHABITANTS BY HENRY PRIESTLEY P-198 L29-31, AFGHNISTAN AND ITS INHABITANTS BY HENRY PRIESTLEY_1874 (REPRODUCED BY SANG-E-MEEL PUBLICATIONS_PAKISTAN_1981 P-55/56, P 197/198, “DA PSHTO QABELO RAWAYATI NASBI SHAJRE O TAAREEK’ (PASHTO) BY SIAL MOMAND_1986 P249-250, TAAREEKH-E-PASHTOON BY SHER MUHAMMAD KHAN_TRANSLATED BY SARAJ AHMED ALVI_EDITION 1979 P 200. 7. AAEEN-E-AKBARI (URDU) BY ABUL FAZAL_TRANSLATED BY MAULVI FIDA ALI_EDITION 2007_PUBLISHED BY SANG-E- MEEL PUBLICATIONS_P1036_TABLE SERIAL 37,MUKHTASUR TAAREEKH-E-PASHTOON BY PROFESSOR HAMEEDULLAH_2004 P 515, “MEMOIR OF JAHANGIR BY THE LATE SIR H.M. ELLOIT_EDITED BY PROF. JOHN DOWSON_FIRST PUBLISHED 1871_THIS REF FROM PAKISTANI EDITION BY ISLAMIC BOOK SERVICE_EDITION 1975”, AN ACCOUNT OF KINGDOM OF KABUL (VOLUME2) BY MOUNTSTUART ELPHINSTONE_ PUBLISHED BY ‘OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS_KARACHI’ P10-13. 8 AFGHANISTAN AND ITS INHABITANTS BY HENRY PRIESTLEY P 100-106, GAZETTEER OF THE PESHAWAR DISTRICT P-53/54, THE PATHANS BY OLAF CAROE P-153 L18-22, P-173/174, TAAREEKH-E-HAZARA (URDU) BY DR. SHER BAHADUR KHAN PANNI_FIRST EDITION_1969 AD P 295-313, YOUSAFZAE (URDU) BY ALLAH BAKHUSH YOUSAFZAI_EDITION 1960 P 218-219, ‘MUKHTASUR TAAREEKH-E-PASHTOON’(URDU) BY PROFESSOR HAMEEDULLAH_2004 P 48. 9 AFGHANISTAN AND ITS INHABITANTS BY HENRY PRIESTLEY P-101 L39-49, P-103, P-221/222, GAZETTEER OF THE PESHAWAR DISTRICT P-54 L24-28, P-125, P-157 L9-17, THE PATHANS BY OLAF CAROE P-175 L11-20, TAAREEKH-E-HAZARA (URDU) BY DR. SHER BAHADUR KHAN PANNI_FIRST EDITION_1969 AD P 295-313, MUKHTASUR TAAREEKH-E-PASHTOON BY PROFESSOR HAMEEDULLAH_2004 P 49. 10 GAZETTEER OF THE PESHWAR DISTRICT P-54 L28-31, AFGHANISTNA AND ITS INHABITANTS BY HENRY PRIESTLEY P-103/104, TAAREEKH-E-HAZARA (URDU) BY DR. SHER BAHADUR KHAN PANNI_FIRST EDITION_1969 AD P 295-313, “’TAWAREEKH-E-HAFIZ RAHMAT KHANI’ (URDU) BY PIR MOAZZAM SHAH_REARRANGED WITH NOTES BY ‘KHAN ROSHAN KHAN’_ PUBLISHED BY PASHTO ACADEMY-1976 P 83-570”. 11 AFGHNISTAN AND ITS INHABITANTS BY HENRY PRIESTLEY_1874 (REPRODUCED BY SANG-E-MEEL PUBLICATIONS_PAKISTAN_1981 P-55/56, P 129/142/222, YOUSAFZAE (URDU) BY ALLAH BAKHUSH YOUSAFI_EDITION 1960 P 77-79/220-226, “ ‘THE KINGDOM OF AFGHANISTAN_A HISTORICAL SKETCH BY G.P.TATE’ -1911_THIS REF PUBLISHED BY ‘INDUS Publications_ 1973’ P 12 (FOOT NOTE), “’TAWAREEKH-E-HAFIZ RAHMAT KHANI’ (URDU) BY PIR MOAZZAM SHAH_REARRANGED WITH NOTES BY ‘KHAN ROSHAN KHAN’_ PUBLISHED BY PASHTO ACADEMY-1976 P 83-570”, ‘HUND-AFTER THE GREAT FLOODS(URDU) BY ISLAH PUBLICATIONS_P 58. 12 AFGHANISTAN AND ITS INHABITANTS P-198 L40-47, GAZETTEER OF THE ATTOCK DISTRICT P-91 L37-41, YOUSAFZAE (URDU) BY ALLAH BAKHUSH YOUSAFZAI_EDITION 1960 P 77-79, “MEMOIR OF JAHANGIR BY THE LATE SIR H.M. ELLOIT”, TAAREEKH-E-HINDUSTAN_SALTANAT-E-ISLAMIA KA BIAN (HISTORH OF HINDUSTAN_DETAILS OF ISLAMIC KINGDOM) (URDU)-VOLUME 6_’KARNAMA-E-JAHANGIRI’ (DEEDS OF JAHANGIR) P 52. 13 GAZETTEER OF THE ATTOCK DISTRICT P-91 L37-41, AFGHANISTAN AND ITS INHABITANTS P-198 L40-47, “TAAREEKH-E-HAZARA_TURHON KA EHD (THE TURK’S PERIOD)(URDU)’ BY MUHAMMAD IRSHAD KHAN M.A.M.Ed. _ PUBLISHED AT TUFAIL ART PRINTERS_LAHORE (PAKISTAN)_1976 P 54, HAYAT-E-AFGHANI BY MUHAMMAD HAYAT KHAN_1865 P 371-373. 14 Punjabi Musalmans P-152, TAAREEKH-E-HAZARA (URDU)BY DR. SHER BAHADUR KHAN PANNI_FIRST EDITION_1969 AD P 295-313 15 TAAREEKH-E-HAZARA (URDU) BY DR. SHER BAHADUR KHAN PANNI_FIRST EDITION_1969 AD P 295-313. 16 TAAREEKH-E-HAZARA (URDU) BY DR. SHER BAHADUR KHAN PANNI_FIRST EDITION_1969 AD P 295-313. 17 “‘There is said to be a colony of about four hundred families of them settled in Dholpur-‘Race of Afghanistan’ by H.W. Bellew_published by Sh. Mubarak Ali_Lahore_Pakistan P 68’”,’TAAREEKH-E-HAZARA (URDU) BY DR. SHER BAHADUR KHAN PANNI_FIRST EDITION_1969 AD P 295-313, “ ‘ SOLAT-E-AFGHANI’(URDU) BY HAJI MUHAMMAD ZARDAR KHAN_ PRINTED AT ‘MUNSHI NOL KISHORE PRINTIN PRESS’_’ Printing Year Not Given’ P 491-492-‘’………it is so guessed that this tribe is living in ‘bari town’ of dholpur area since then (after expulsion by jahangir), but it is not proved by any book. Here their leader is sardar ahmed khan haji and their lands are from the king, out of which only rs. 3000/- worth of property is left..(translated from urdu)….”. Sorry for bad manners.... Dilazak1@gmail/hotmail/yahoo.com Dilazak1 (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Edward Glover (psychoanalyst) Stop and wait please ! Bettibossi (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Edward Glover (psychoanalyst) Stop and wait please ! Bettibossi (talk) 11:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Edward Glover (psychoanalyst) Kan you stop this stupid joke and wait please! Bettibossi (talk) 11:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Edward Glover (psychoanalyst) Kan you !!!) stop this stupid joke and wait please mister Prince ! Bettibossi (talk) 11:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Edward Glover (psychoanalyst) You'r using your power for nothing and ! The article is interessant but not for people like you. Bye Mister Prince of (What?) Bettibossi (talk) 11:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Heh Turns out you were right. Well done. Giggy (talk) 11:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Commonwealth of Nations That organization is about as confusing as can be. The realms have seperate monarchies (office), but the same monarch (person). The republics have their own 'Head of States' yet EII2 is the Head of the CoN. As for members like Swaziland?? ahhh. I guess, it's confusing only if one wants it to be. GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Commonwealth realms Hiya, when you're back online, could you have a look at the proposal on Talk:Commonwealth realms? I think we're pretty close to a solution now. Thanks! (btw: I like your username. As a fellow Canadian, I probably should object, but I don't: I like it! :-) I wonder if there ever was a Prince of Canada, as opposed to a Canadian Prince {which of course there are, and have been, many}) Ciao fr33kman -s- 21:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC) You are mistaken, and you appear to be a vandal. You are mistaken about the change I made to the Bloods article. You either are using a browser that does not follow web standards and that makes the page appear differently or you really need to grow a brain. Please be more careful and polite in the future. You can note that someone else already reverted your mistaken revert. If you are going to edit Wikipedia, you should try not to do such things. It makes it appear that you are engaged in vandalism. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.239.241 (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Blocked You have been blocked until October 20th 2008 for violation of 1RR restrictions at Template:British Royal Family. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. Tiptoety talk 01:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC) This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Roux (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I did not.. G2 made a bunch of changes to the template; I changed only the image, asked him to take it to the talk page. He didn't, reverted my change instead, so I reverted it back with another request to discuss at talk. Decline reason: See WP:GAB for how to appeal a block. Did you not realize you were under a 1RR restriction on this template? I'd have taken the same action as Tiptoety. G2bambino performed only one revert, while you did two. 1RR rules are put in place for really tedious disputes, so they need to be vigorously enforced. EdJohnston (talk) 01:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. That equals two reverts of the same content, a clear violation of your 1RR restriction. Tiptoety talk 01:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC) The first was not a revert; multiple intervening edits, I made one change. The second was a revert. Prince of Canada t | c 01:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Just so I am clear here (for reviewing admins) the first revert was the removal of the coat of arms, [1], and here is the second [2]. Tiptoety talk 01:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC) I was unaware that would be counted as a 'revert.' Prince of Canada t | c 01:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC) You removed something added by G2, he added it back, you removed it again. If those are not reverts, I am not sure what is. Tiptoety talk 01:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Actually, I restored something that had been there, for ages. I made no other edits to the template; as I have told you already, my understanding of 'revert' is that it is a wholesale removal of all changes, which this wasn't. Clearly I was in error, but I do not understand why I should be blocked for not understanding what you meant when you said 'generally speaking' in regards to the restrictions placed on G2 and myself. My understanding was that referred to a broad interpretation of what could be considered 'Canadian monarchy', and not a broad interpretation of what revert means. I misunderstood. I'm sorry for misunderstanding, but that doesn't mean I should be blocked for two (!) weeks. Further, I help out a lot with vandal fighting, helping people who are using {{helpme}}, helping new users understand how to avoid CSD. Blocking is not a net benefit to WP, and is merely punitive--my mistake was based on a misunderstanding of what you meant as well as the meaning of 'revert'. That misunderstanding has been corrected. Prince of Canada t | c 01:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC) This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Roux (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I was unaware that would be counted as a revert. Of course I am aware that I am under 1RR, and have been following it extremely carefully, to the point of having to allow clearly unnecessary edits to stand. I did not know that making two edits would be counted as reverts. Clearly I will be more careful in the future. Decline reason: You've been previously blocked three times for edit warring, so you've had ample opportunities to learn what constitutes a revert or not. I'm not buying that you didn't understand that this is a revert. Additionally, when confronted with what you perceive is a disruptive user, the correct way to go about things is to try to modify their behavior. Find a friendly admin to help acculturate them, post on WP:ANI, or file a request for user comment. Edit-warring in response is so disruptive that you'll be sanctioned even if you're in the right. east718 // talk // email // 05:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Roux (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I have already explained that I was in error. I thought that 'revert' meant 'complete reversion', and not 'small edit'. It was a mistake. I was wrong. I am not disputing that. It will not happen again. I thought I was acting within the guidelines, I was wrong, it won't happen again. And yes, I will be filing an RfC as soon as this block is lifted, which it should be. The block is preventing nothing; I understand my mistake about where the guidelines lay and will be more careful. I don't know what else to say. Decline reason: While I truly believe you understand the error you made, it is clear to me that this is not a case of simply misunderstanding the rules or not being familiar with our policies - this is a pattern of problematic edits recently. As such, I'm declining your unblock and letting the block run its course. I do hope that you can come back from the block and edit in a positive manner again. — - Philippe 15:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Roux (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Yes, it was simply a misunderstanding of a fine point. Please note that I have been extremely careful about sticking to my restrictions everywhere else. This block is preventing nothing, as I have already explained--it was a mistake about the fine points of the restriction, I understand where the mistake was, and three admins have said to me they would be surprised if the block were not lifted, given that. Please remove this block. Decline reason: This was a difficult decision but in the end I feel that I can only come down against the unblock. Assuming good faith, that this was an honest mistake, at best leads me to the conclusion that you are thinking of your 1RR as an entitlement: no. Just as 3RR is not an entitlement, 1RR is not an entitlement for you. You are still seemingly quite quick to revert the maximum number of times rather than engage in dispute resolution. Reverting only once is less damaging that 3 times, but you are fundamentally still edit warring, to the maximum extent you think you are allowed. Mangojuicetalk 03:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. I'm recusing myself from this block review, for the reasons I've explained to you on IRC; however, I have left a note for you and G2B at User talk:Tiptoety#A 3RR case. Please post your reply here in the meantime, we'll be watching this page. Thanks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC) I just noticed that G2bambino also broke his 1RR restriction. Having one editor in a conflict blocked for two weeks while the other skates off scot-free seems pretty unacceptable from an equity standpoint. I'll ask Tiptoety what's up with this and whether he might hand out a matching block to G2bambino or unblock you. east718 // talk // email // 05:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC) And he's misrepresenting me, again on Tiptoety's talk. I had said I was not open to a joint RfC, because despite what he thinks, the problem isn't with me; it's his appalling treatment of several users. Sure, I'm not reacting to it in the best way, granted. But it's not just me, and I resent being misrepresented. Prince of Canada t | c 07:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC) East, I do not currently have time to go track down where G2B has violated his 1RR sanction and as such I will not be blocking, but you are more than welcome to. The reason I did not block the other half of the party (though I generally try to) was because this was simply based on the fact that PoC went over his 1RR limit while G2B did not, and until I had evidence to block G2B on I was not going to. Also east, have a look at my talk page. Tiptoety talk 14:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Are you going to say anything to G2 about deliberately misrepresenting me, again? Prince of Canada t | c 22:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Organizational Problems. Mkay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.186.15.91 (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Commonwealth realms 2 Hi, I'm sorry to see that you are blocked at the moment. As such, I'd still like to offer you the chance to partake in the discussion regarding the dispute at Talk:Commonwealth realm that I'm mediating. If you read the page and have anything to say. I will forward your replies onto that talk page verbatim. I feel that it is important to the dispute that your views are heard, even while you are on block. Thanks and chin up! fr33kman -s- 04:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Deciding that Miller's thoughts don't apply is OR; he says Commonwealth, which is what we are discussing. Getting bogged down in the notion that the title of the article has any sort of official or formal usage is patently silly, as it explicitly does not. Deciding that Elliot's don't apply is likewise silly: he is suggesting before the fact that 'personal union' could not be accurate, subsequent scholars coming after him him (Corbett, Sack) say it isn't accurate in practice, scholars contemporaneous to us concur. Using the source shows that at no time was the term widely considered to be accurate, whether before or during the development of the--back to this again--sui generis relationship amongst the monarchies of the commonwealth. It traces the argument from before the relationship through the generation of the relationship to the relationship as it stands today. Background and context are essential. Prince of Canada t | c 05:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Just keep posting replies to the discussion here and then tell me where you'd like them inserted (ie: what you're replying to) and I'll post them. Cheers! fr33kman -s- 16:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Hey now, don't be making changes yet. The discussion is not concluded. Prince of Canada t | c 22:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC) No, I don't consider it closed at all! The suggestion was to propose a new change and then see what people think of it. We have to find a common ground here and I'd like to challenge you and G2 to do some thinking about how that can best be done. There is going to have to be some give from both sides and I truly think that you guys are capable of it! :-) fr33kman -s- 23:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Elliot's statement does not belong in the History section--or, okay, not solely in the history section. It should be referenced in both places. Again: provide background/context before the fact, scholarly opinion during the development of the relationship, and current thoughts on the definition of the relationship. Simply providing a definition without any background context makes no sense. Miller belongs there, but if G2 isn't going to give up his POV-pushing/OR/SYN about what he meant (despite only using the term 'Commonwealth'), then fine, remove it. That's about as far as I'm willing to go, however. And I notice that G2's only real objection is that it's reverting to what I wrote. Revealing, isn't it? Prince of Canada t | c 00:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC) Light in the Attic Hi PrinceOfCanada, Thanks so much for all of your help with my Light In The Attic page. I have fully read up on all of the conflict of interest, flowery writing, and agree that I will change the page to make it more neutral. I have a problem with overusing adjectives, and it is something I am getting help for. :) Thanks again, Emily —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahchapman (talk • contribs) 00:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC) You're welcome, Emily. Prince of Canada t | c 00:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)