User talk:SheriffIsInTown

The most important aspect of delivering justice is to deliver the offenders to the justices, so they may defend themselves.

Sheriff ☎ 911

Welcome to Corrections Department

If you happen to come by to file a police report, please leave it in its own drawer in my desk and I will attend to it when I come back from patrol.

Your liberal accusations of vandalism on Yazidis

You have repeatedly reverted people's edits on Yazidis with edit summaries claiming they were vandalism. That was not always the case (in fact, in at least one case, your revert flew right in the fact of the cited source, which, while not in English, are easily checked with an automatic translator). Vandalism is a grave accusation to make, so you should refrain from making it lightly. I hope you will provide more constructive edit summaries in the future, as well as trying to avoid to revert legitimate edits. LjL (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Most Yezidis speak Kurmanji, a Kurdish dialect, as their mother tongue.

Source 15, page 5, section 1.6, first sentence

At least, I am providing summaries, not making unexplained IP edits like some and then coming back to remand people when they get reverted. I suggest you talk before you make controversial IP edits. Sheriff (report) 17:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, are you accusing me of being the one behind the "controversial IP edits"? LjL (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, as noted in my latest edit summary, you have neglected to consider the source cited immediately after the claim, which is the one I was directly referring to. LjL (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

That reference does not clearly say that the name of language is Yazidi language, it does however say that Yazidi language is Kurmanji then again when there are multiple sources which clearly say the language name as Kurmanji then why should we consider a source which is ambiguous. Sheriff (report) 17:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Then remove the source if it's inaccurate or not reliable (though you better make a good case of it), but misrepresenting it and/or labeling other people's edits that comform to the source "vandalism" is not appropriate. Besides, it doesn't spell the language name as "Yazidi" because (duh!) it's not in English, but in Russian, so it comes out differently from Google Translate. But anyway I don't care how you choose to transliterate it. I'm mostly just concerned with your vehemence in reverting and accusing when not-so-warranted. LjL (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Chatter on Hajj talkpage

It's a fair point that half the questions being asked are not related directly to this instance, and the RD exists to help people with this kind of question. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Then, i think a move will help. Can we just move the discussion to RD instead of just removing it completely? Sheriff (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, it's probably easiest to open a new thread there, previous discussions don't seem to have generated anything helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SheriffIsInTown. You have new messages at Talk:2015 Mina stampede.
Message added 15:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ayub407^talk 15:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

rollback

Hi SheriffIsInTown. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. Sheriff (report) 19:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

edit reverted

Hey why you reverted my edits in Bahawalpur page? There are many colleges not only one UMAIR SHAREEEF (talk) 09:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@UMAIR SHAREEEF:They are unsourced to begin with and not notable as well but even if you have sources, still it's unencyclopedic to include all of them on the page. Your edits were reverted as WP:OR. Moreover, we must follow a manual of style when editing and cannot leave our text all in capital letters anywhere on page. Sheriff (report) 12:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

It is shameful that there is no name of 127 years old institution of Bahawalpur I don't want to comment on it. My writing is not good as you people but I want you people to research more about Bahawalpur.

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Hi ! I want to be your friend. Ciphers00 (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ciphers00:Thank you, i am not sure, how to properly respond except to thank you for this gesture. :) Sheriff (report) 16:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad Malik

Dear friend, I hope you are well. Maybe we could collaborate on the editing of this page. I'm a native English speaker and can help with the copy-editing. What do you think? My regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 10:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@GorgeCustersSabre: Thanks for your offer of help but i am not sure why you are having me add the ref on every line of the page, it seems silly. It looks like you are not doing any effort to look at the refs/sources already present in the page before removing the text that i enter. I hope i did not upset you with my summary line earlier. If you really want to help then i would suggest that we should not have that one source mentioned ten times in the page. I have some editing experience myself as well but i have never seen someone bully me like this for references while all of the information is already present in sources and it takes little to no effort to verify. Also it would be a great help if you cn tag the text which you do not find the ref for instead removing it immediately. Sheriff (report) 13:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I acted toward you in good faith, yet you rebuff my effort to help and call me a bully. Listen please: your edits were really sloppy (usually unreferenced or poorly referenced) and poorly written, and you seem more intent on creating a fan page than a neutral, reliable and well written encyclopedia page. So be it. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

It would be criminal negligence not to offer you this tasty cupcake for one of the most original ideas for user pages I have come across. Please enjoy! Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 19:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, i appreciate the gesture. Sheriff (report) 19:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

British Raj

Please read the article completely beforte jumping in and editing and demanding references. You ask for references for the term India and British India, may I point out to you the section headed British India and the Princely States which quotes and references the Interpretation Act of 1889. Now will you please stop your slow motion edit warring? Dabbler (talk) 13:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

See the Interpretation Act 1889, so far i am unable to find the term "British India" in whichever sources i checked it in. Please remove it yourself from the lead or point me to a source. Sheriff (report) 13:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1889/63/pdfs/ukpga_18890063_en.pdf Section 18, sub-sections 4 and 5. And an apology would be nice. Dabbler (talk) 14:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, that was an error on my part, i thought searching with Ctrl+F would give me the results within that PDF but somehow it did not render them. Sheriff (report) 14:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Dabbler (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Note

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Muhammad, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: You can read his highly abusive edit summary. Also there are many highly nationalistic edit summaries. --Human3015^TALK  12:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015: My abusive edit summary? Do you know what was reverted with that edit summary? A highly abusive content. I didn't expect that you will make an issue out of this but thanks anyway, I will look out from now on. I just got carried away after seeing that text. Sheriff (report) 17:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

That IP was vandal IP, you should have reverted him without giving any edit summary. If you are giving same kind of edit summary then it is also a vandalism. In your edit summary you were abusing that IP, as per Wikipedia rules we don't abuse vandal users too. --Human3015^TALK  17:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I was trying to be funny with that edit summary, I thought it would make people laugh, did not expect that it would be viewed as an abuse. :) Sheriff (report) 02:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

• I am also notifying you about discretionary sanctions related to India-Pakistan-Afghanistan related articles. Nothing bad in it, I have been also notified for the same in past and every user who edits India-Pakistan related article frequently is notified for it. I saw somewhere that you were saying "Pakistan thinks that Kashmiris are Pakistanis, so we can't write Kashmiri people as Indian". See, such kind of behaviour is not allowed on these topics. If any editor do such kind of editing frequently then he/she gets topic banned for 6 months in initial stages. Topic banned means that editor can't edit topics related to India-Pakistan. Ok, there are some norms while editing India-Pakistan articles. Here we think that Azad Kashmir is part of Pakistan and Jammu & Kashmir is part of India. We write Azad Kashmir in state and territories of Pakistan and Jammu & Kashmir in state and territories of India. On such articles we ignore what is view of Pakistan and India regarding these territories. They call each other's Kashmir as "occupied Kashmir", that is also not allowed to write even if you provide hundreds of sources. So you should know such things. There many other things. But here now you are aware about discretionary sanctions. Editors with Pro-pakistani or Pro-Indian nationalistic views gets banned. Many very experienced users have banned till now. So be aware. --Human3015^TALK  17:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015: Is there a policy governing that or I have to take your word. Moreover, I was being neutral when I was making that edit. My point of view was that let's not write "Indian Kashmiri mother" for Adnan Sami's mother since she was born in disputed territory but I did not advocate to write "Pakistani Kashmiri mother" either, neutral would have been to just write "Kashmiri mother" but you took a wrong view on that without completely understanding my point of view. Please let me know the policy governing discretionary sanctions regarding Pakistan-India-Afghanistan pages so I know what to refrain from and what is allowed. Thanks! Sheriff (report) 17:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no special editing restrictions beyond standard discretionary sanctions. Reading Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Guidance_for_editors might help. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Sheriff, people from Azad Kashmir can also be called as "Kashmiri", so in above case of Adnan, it was important to write his mother is from Indian side of Kashmir so that why "Indian" is important. For example Parvez Rasool is an international cricketer from Kashmir. In his case we write "He is Indian cricketer" not "Kashmri cricketer". "Nationality" of people is important when we write about them. All people of Jammu and Kashmir holds Indian passport, so when we mention someone from them on Wikipedia then it is important to mention their nationality. --Human3015^TALK  17:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

That is an interesting argument. As you know, I have argued with Mar4d that Azad Kashmiris should be called "Azad Kashmiris," and not simply "Kashmiris." If that suggestion is respected, there would be no need to say "Indian Kashmiri" for the ethnic Kashmiris. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar?

You gave a barnstar to User:WikiBulova for List of magazines in Karachi. Actually, this article was in its entirety copied and pasted by WikiBUlova from List of magazines in Pakistan... Rescinding the barnstar? Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 17:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

kashmiri: Please read the message in the barnstar carefully, it was not for List of magazines in Pakistan but rather it was for Sindh, i found his work impressive on that article for a new editor but then i have been having second thoughts as well. At this point, i am sticking to my decision to give him a barnstar because i think every new editor have a room for improvement but who doesn't, even most experienced editors have room for improvement. He needs to work on collecting the sources before adding the information. Sheriff (report) 17:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, your edit summary[1] only mentions that specific article, so maybe I jumped to conclusion too rapidly. Anyhow, just found it slightly curious to see a barnstar on the profile of such a new editor, one with a number of controversial edits. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 17:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

That barnstar is for new editors as it is named The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar. Sheriff (report) 17:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

A 9 months old account with 1600+ edits and you call them a "new editor"? kashmiri ^TALK 19:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

That was my judgement when I awarded him that barnstar. Wikipedia is a broad system with a wide range of policies. It takes a lot of time and learning curve to understand and learn them. Everyone is not a fast learner. We should be patient with new editors as they learn and grow themselves instead of harassing them for every mistake they make. That is my personal view, yours could be different. I still consider myself a new editor although I have more than 2,300 edits. I think anyone with less than 2,000 edits should be considered a new editor. You might want to look back at your time when you started editing and then judge others. Sheriff (report) 21:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Katie^talk 01:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Sheriff (report) 01:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Mohammad Ashraf Ghani

Hello, I'm Krzyhorse22. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@Krzyhorse22: If you claim that all that information is verifiable through multiple sources in the article then please add those sources to the pertinent information. You know that sources can be added multiple times in an article. Please do not revert me without adding the sources. Sheriff (report) 02:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Bangladesh

Hi. I'd appreciate it if you would raise any questions beforehand. The oldest archaeologically excavated cities in Bangladesh are from the first millennium BCE, this is not a "rather exceptional claim", its very much a matter of fact. Cheers,--Akbar the Great (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I saw the names of cities in your summary line and I will do some research to find out where the claim in the article stands.

That is how we improve the article, if a source is not there, we ask for one, either you provide one or remove unsourced information and in the end, article gets improved. Thanks for your note. Sheriff (report) 02:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

NLIST Reply

As I read WP:NLIST, members must be individually notable in order to be included in standalone lists. The names I deleted did not have Wikipedia articles and per WP:WTAF should first have ones in order to be placed on lists. A reference is not a substitute for an article, because only a separate article can undergo a scrutiny as regards facts, notability, etc. The passage you quoted only says that in order for a person (who already has an article!) to be included on a list of, say, actors, a reliable source must attest that the person indeed was an actor. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 15:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh come on, read WP:NLIST and WP:WTAF carefully, where does it say on any of them that to include in the list, a person must have an article? WP:WTAF only talks about refraining from red-linking but it does not say that you must create an article before you can include someone in the list without red-linking. WP:NLIST clearly talks about reliable sources which are good enough to establish notability, it does not say that you must create an article to establish notability. Sheriff (report) 16:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

"Inclusion within stand-alone lists should be determined by the notability criteria above" (that is, by WP:NBIO). Which means that non-notable people cannot be included, and notability can only be tested through creating an article. In no way does it allow to establish notability by way of footnote to the list. kashmiri ^TALK 16:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, you are not reading the policy properly, it says "Notability is required to create an article", it does not say otherwise that "To prove notability or effectively test it, you must create an article." I will request you to revert yourself please as those entries were supported by sources. Sheriff (report) 16:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You clearly haven't read the articles linked from NLIST, especially WP:Namechecking. Namechecking is precisely what you are doing in this list article, and "is not cool".

Of the three sources quoted, two are trivial mentions insufficient to establish even WP:SIGNIFICANCE, only Rabab Hashim might fulfill notability criteria if not for the source - she is heavily promoted only by her employer, GeoTV.

Thus, a revert wouldn't do good to Wikipedia. kashmiri ^TALK 16:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

A quick reply on Rabab Hashim, Geo TV is not her employer, actresses or actors in Pakistan are not employed by TV channels rather they work in serials of almost all channels. I see her dramas on ARY Digital which is Geo TV's competitor. Sheriff (report) 17:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your claim about WP:Namechecking, all of those three do not fall under that policy as they are not sisters/daughters of someone notable, they are themselves popular actresses by profession. Sheriff (report) 18:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please stop edit warring at Muhammad, take it to the talk page and find consensus. Further edit warring will result in a block without any more warning. HighInBC 16:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@HighInBC: That is harsh and one sided, I see you added no notice to other edit-warring party, he is the one who added the text on Baha'i views without consensus, the consensus was against inclusion and that text was removed by two other editors before me, check the edit history. Sheriff (report) 16:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You have reverted 3 times today. I don't see anyone else who has reverted more than a single time. I am not going to give someone an edit warring warning for a single revert. 3 reverts on the other hand is 1 less than 4 which is a WP:3RR violation. It is a contentious article and it is especially important that we avoid edit warring there. HighInBC 16:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@HighInBC: That should be counted as one revert when it comes to edit-warring since there were intermediary edits in between by other editors and not all edits were regarding same material. Sheriff (report) 16:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Revert 1, revert 2, revert 3. From Wikipedia:Edit warring, An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. emphasis mine.

I see 3 reverts based on the definition given in policy. Now that I have clarified policy do you still think I am miscounting? If I have misunderstood something I am happy to hear how. HighInBC 16:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@HighInBC: Revert 1 is not a revert rather it was a new edit by me, i did not revert anyone on that one.

Revert 2 had intermediary edits between the original edit and my revert.

Revert 3 I reverted myself as to actually pacify the situation and to stop edit-warring, this should be considered a peace-making, good-will gesture instead of part of edit-warring. Sheriff (report) 16:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Revert 1 did undo the work of another editor and is a revert. I see in the history that you undid several other edits. The count is confusing as there are intermingled edits. I am glad that you self-reverted and stopped edit warring. I think we can leave this alone now and just disagree about how many reverts there were. HighInBC 17:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Prophet ﷺ

Yes we all know that the last Prophet sallahahi alahi was sallam was not the founder of Islam. But I have seen amongst Non-Muslim people that they harbour a belief that he was so. As the information is well sourced in the article, it is diffucult to remove. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 09:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Image copyright

Your addition to Firdous Jamal has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Jezebel's Ponyo Can it be attributed to the source? Can we say that the image is copyrighted to so and so or point to the website, i have seen many images on Wikipedia for which licensing information says that the image is copied from the following website! For example, the infobox image at Jeetendra. Sheriff | report | 21:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The image must be free (in the public domain) or appropriately licensed. Images of living persons found on various websites almost never meet the criteria required and such images cannot be claimed under fair use. The Jeetendra image is from bollywoodhungama.com, one of the exceedingly rare websites that do release a selection of their images under a compatible license.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Jezebel's Ponyo: How about if I obtain an express permission from the actor? What should the text say from him? Can he just simply say "you are allowed to post it"? Would it be good enough? I will contact him via email to obtain his approval. Sheriff | report | 23:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects: "If you're interested in donating photographs to illustrate your article...you can email photosubmissionwikimedia.org . Please include the photograph in question, along with a statement that you own the copyright on it, and an agreement to release it under a free license. Our recommended license is the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. If you don't own the copyright, please ask the photographer or copyright owner to send in a release instead. The "declaration of consent" may be used if desired."--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Can i ask him to email me or he must email to photosubmissionwikimedia.org? Sheriff | report | 23:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The copyright holder needs to confirm the release.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Jezebel's Ponyo, what do you think about screen captures? What if we do not save the actual image but take a screen shot? For example, TechSmith Jing lets you take screen captures and crop them however you want. Let me know about screen captures of human subjects and non-human subjects especially screen captures of data charts or maps? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Screen captures cannot be used to depict living persons. The image has to either be in the public domain, or the appropriate permissions provided by the copyright holder.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ponyo: So does that mean screen captures of non-human subjects especially screen captures of data charts or maps are okay?

Edits on Islam

I noticed that you reverted one of my edits to Islam. Wikipedia isn't an instruction book on how to perform the Hajj, and the grammar related to that paragraph should reflect the fact that. Starting sentences with "Then," a conjunction, is not proper English grammar. See MOS:NOTE. Furthermore, reverting edits that aren't clearly vandalism should really not happen. "You should avoid reverting edits other than vandalism most of the time," as per WP:STATUSQUO. I know I'm speaking to the choir since you have Rollback, but you should still consider changing your edit practices to favor keeping additions over removing them. For more information, I suggest reading WP:ROWN. Lucas "nicatronTg" Nicodemus (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Lucas "nicatronTg" Nicodemus: That is one upset message. Where does it say that edits other than WP:VANDALISM cannot be reverted. I gave a reason for my revert and all editors do not have to agree with each other. Disagreements exist everywhere. When you changed the text, you technically reverted someone, were you reverting a vandalism? I still believe my text is better than yours. I will invite you to take the proper recourse and take that to Talk:Islam. You got to calm down dude. Sheriff | report | 15:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't -- it says that reverting should be used sparingly, with restraint. That particular section is in an unencyclopedic tone, which is technically incorrect for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Once again, I invite you to read the pages I linked and familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia style guidelines pertaining to grammar. Lucas "nicatronTg" Nicodemus (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Karachi Food & Cuisine:

Hi, I am curious as to why you deleted Nihari as a repetition of Biryani. They are different dishes, each with an individual article. Richard Harvey (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@Richard Harvey: When I added it, I did not notice that it's already mentioned in the middle of paragraph but the source I was looking at, was giving more prominence to Nihari than Biryani. I tend to work on that paragraph and add/remove sourced/unsourced material later. Sheriff | report | 01:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Interesting as since posting my message I have noted that the entire section you pasted in was copied from:- http://karshi.trade/city though the source didn't have Nirhani at the begining. Unfortunately having now realised it is a copyvio I am inclined to delete the entire section, even though I copyedited what you pasted in it cannot be changed enough to warrant keeping it. Richard Harvey (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@Richard Harvey: Didn't realize that it was copyvio, I took it from Yamaguchi先生's removal edit, please note http://karshi.trade/city might be a copy of Wikipedia. Sheriff | report | 01:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I just checked that url, it's other way around, surely the whole page is copy of an older version of Karachi article. Sheriff | report | 02:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay; He must have removed the original for a reason. I've been looking through other sections of the article and matching them to that website and there are many other potential issues. As you say it may be a mirror site and I noticed that it was updated today, so I will ask Yamaguchi先生 to check it out. I see in the Karachi edit history a certain user name who is blocked as a sockpuppet of an indef banned editor. Just to be safe I will revert the Karachi article, it can always be added back. :) Richard Harvey (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@Richard Harvey: He removed it because it was unsourced and I tend to source it. Its not a copyvio as there are certain websites which copy from Wikipedia as well and that website is not some well known or reputable site anyway. Sheriff | report | 04:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hussain Haqqani

Not sure why the Hussain Haqqani was attacked all of a sudden. Most of the text added by the IP was WP:COPYVIO from WP:NEWSORG opinion columns, which aren't WP:RS anyway. And the Visual Hawk looks like the sock of some old POV-pusher. If it were me, I would just go back to your old version from October. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, without seeing your notice, I reverted to revision by ClueBot, I will review IP's edits to see where they stand. Sheriff | report | 16:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3 Do you know whose sock is VisionHawk or you were just guessing? Sheriff | report | 17:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The section was made highly biased, we need to ensure that a neutral point of view is presented about Hussain Haqqani despite his highly controversial standing. The content added is referenced and unreferenced content has been removed. VisionHawk

@SheriffIsInTown

The content is not referenced rather its copy pasted content, and is highly biased we need to ensure a balanced view point on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VisionHawk (talk • contribs) 16:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

It depends what you consider biased and what others consider biased! Sheriff | report | 17:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown

I fully agree with you, infact I believe the previous content was more biased then the nature of the current one. Come to talk page of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by VisionHawk (talk • contribs) 17:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown

I am still waiting for you to come to the talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by VisionHawk (talk • contribs) 17:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Sheriff, I was just guessing. He/she certainly doesn't appear "new." I am not sure why there is this sudden spurt in the edits to the page today. There don't seem to be any new events that triggered it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I note there is some common editing on the article and two other articles, with 91.212.53.252. Which is an educational establishment that was recently blocked for 14 days. Richard Harvey (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Advices

Assalamualikum Wrahmatullah Brother. Keya hal hay. I hope fine. I'd like to give just some advice. It will be much better if you remove some of your infoboxes, as you might be in trouble. I had an account and was good contribitor, but then blocked all of my boxes, which were similar to yours have been removed. Admins had a negative thought on me. This is just an advice. Hope that you'll consider this. Fiamanillah. Allah knows best.--78.149.115.204 (talk) 12:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I have been getting ideas to create some of my userboxes and templates from pages of a few other users and have noticed one of those users were blocked recently, maybe it's you but I am not afraid of anything and would keep portraying myself as I am. I wish there was some leniency on Wikipedia towards good contributers vs. people who just come to vandalize. Sheriff | report | 16:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm genuinely interested - what userboxes do you believe will get someone blocked? I've been an admin for 7-8 years now, and I've never once blocked someone over an infobox. I mean - I suppose yes, I could imagine infoboxes on a userpage that would get someone banned (something like 'this user believes that all people that have a favorite number of 7 are subhuman' or something similar, I guess). Nothing on your userpage as it is right now jumps out at me as inflammatory or otherwise innapropriate? SQL^{Query me!} 09:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@SQL: What I think the original poster was referring was that some admins or other editors on Wikipedia might have islamophobic views or are anti-Pakistan POV and what I understood that he/she was suggesting was that because of that they can hound you until you can get blocked for valid policy reasons may be but you come under extra scrutiny than most other editors would and personally I feel like a lot of people I interacted with on Wikipedia are already looking for an excuse to block me because my opinions differ from them on most of the issues. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

You were right, people already started accusing me because of my userboxes, it's an easy escape for people to try to win an argument. "oh, he has this userbox on his user page". Akbar the Great, you don't have any right to accuse me all the time because of my userboxes like you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Shams (East Pakistan) (I did not see that before), base your argument on policies of Wikipedia instead of what people's personal preferences are. Almost, every Wikipedia editor who lives in a democratic country supports one or another political party and almost every editor on Wikipedia is a citizen of one country or another, this should not have any bearing on our editing. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you people, you and that IP, trying to promote some sinister agenda here? Because the IP just gave you very bad advice.

Don't imagine things. When did I ever say "oh, he has this userbox on his user page"? I pointed at your userbox only once in that AfD, to illustrate your ridiculous nomination which came after the government you support denied any atrocities in 1971. I personally found that pretty outrageous.--Akbar the Great (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Akbar the Great: Oh, stop with your non-sense accusations already. You are saying that the IP gave me a bad advice to remove userboxes while you made his advice correct by accusing me of political motivation for an AFD because you saw a userbox on my user page which says that I support the political party which is currently in power in Pakistan. The text "oh, he has this userbox on his user page"? was an example of what people like you resort to and it was an essence of what you said on that AFD debate. It was not a ridiculous nomination as I already explained in AFD debate that the page was filled with "citation needed" tags since July 2014 and they must have been around 20. I see people have been adding sources in result of that nomination, I didn't check the page yet but I hope that it is significantly improved than what it was before my nomination. Moreover, I was not aware of Pakistan Government's policy of "genocide denial" which you pointed out, it seems like you are keeping a better tab on Pakistan Government than most Pakistanis are doing.

Again, I will suggest that you stop accusing people and base your arguments on Wikipedia policies like for example I will not accuse you of working for Bangladesh consulate in New Zealand and furthering the agenda of Bangladesh government of Anti-Pakistan POV pushing because that would be totally ridiculous and I have no proof of that and you have no userboxes at your user page on which I can base my accusations although you only work on Bangladesh pages and most of your edits are to promote Bangladesh and accuse Pakistan but since you have no userboxes thus I cannot accuse you of political motivation and POV pushing.

Moreover, I have been seeing your edits since they were less than 200 and your edits and understanding of Wikipedia policies were more sophisticated than me while I had more than 2,000 edits and you do not use summary lines. Based on that it will be preposterous to blame you of being a sockpuppet of a previously blocked user or that you are trying to avoid detection by not using the summary lines. Same way, you should avoid baseless allegations and stick to policy matters.

I will also encourage you to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Single-purpose account if you are not already because your account qualifies the description as it is restricted to Bangladesh articles and focused on promotion of that country while promoting anti-Pakistan POV on those articles. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

This is BS. You're digging head over heels to personally attack me just because you can't argue based on facts and sources? I have more than 1500 edits. Why do you lie so much and put up a religious icon? What in God's name is your problem? I've edited plenty of stuff, so mine isn't a single purpose account. I edited Bangladesh because there was a definite need for improvement. I didn't know that any enhancement of Bangladesh's coverage gets to some of you Pakistani nationalists so much. My content hasn't been disputed, except by you on flimsy grounds.

I dedicated an entire section on human rights and corruption under the Bangladesh Government, I can't imagine how they would be fond of me.

I have a strong feeling that you're a sockpuppet, or certainly acting at the behest of banned users.

I suggest you stop making personal attacks all the time, stop acting like a partisan editor, stop beating around the bush and start talking to the point. I hope Wikipedia doesn't end up getting hijacked by your lot.--Akbar the Great (talk) 02:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Akbar the Great: I didn't accuse you of anything but you are accusing me over and over again and forgetting that you need to be WP:CIVIL when you are talking to others. You are the one who resorts to personal attacks and you have done so over and over again, you have done so at that AFD, that was personal attack and you have done so over and over again here as well and at Talk:Bangladesh so I suggest you stop that, please. All I have done to hear this crap from you is to challenge your edits on policy grounds at Bangladesh and A. K. Fazlul Huq. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

What did I ever accuse you off? Show me proof. The crap you're throwing at me is clearly visible above. In that AfD, I said you were guilty of being politically motivated. I still stand by that. Your unsuccessful nomination came days after the widely reported genocidal denial statement of Pakistan. I don't keep a track of your government. I had to read about it in the front page of my morning paper in Bangladesh. It was also reported around the world, 1, 2, 3 4, 5.

On Sher-e-Bangla, you just don't get it. You also have no idea of who I am. I'll try sorting that out later.--Akbar the Great (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Akbar the Great: To begin, we start with your accusation at AFD of political motivation. What you are implying there is that I knew about "genocidal denial of Pakistan" and that was my motivation to take that page to afd. Let's start with that, I wait for your proof about me knowing about "genocidal denial of Pakistan" and that being the reason.

Now whether it was successful or unsuccessful, I accept the outcome of that AFD and I have no doubt that I followed the proper procedures regarding that. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 05:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

What's left to prove there? You acted in the same context as the Pakistani Government. Anyways I'm done here.--Akbar the Great (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Akbar the Great: So, that's your proof that any Pakistani who will challenge an unsourced WP Bangladesh article, you will blame him for association with Pakistani government? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The article was sourced and met general notability guidelines. You tried to delete the Wikipedia article on the Al Shams brigade for heaven's sake, a widely reported militia force of 1971. I'm sorry you're so blinded to the right side of history by whatever POV you have.--Akbar the Great (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Akbar the Great: WP:AFD is the process which is used to delete the article and no article gets deleted without consensus, it's a normal deletion process at Wikipedia, any editor can feel that an article meets the criteria for deletion and put it up for that. I felt that, that article met that criteria and submitted it for the process, people thought it does not meet the criteria for deletion and the result was "keep". You have no need to be upset about that and call people POV pushers and blame them for political motivation. You should have trust in policies of Wikipedia and follow them. Getting upset about normal processes of Wikipedia shows that you harbor strong political affiliations and your motives are not to build an encyclopedia but rather they are to further a specific political agenda. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You're clearly talking about yourself aren't you. You're the only one here with strong political affiliations and political prejudices.--Akbar the Great (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Akbar the Great: And that's only because I have a userbox on my page which says I am from Pakistan and I prefer to support PML (N) out of all other political parties? You have failed to enlighten me with a valid reason except your empty blames which started when I challenged some of your sourceless edits on Bangladesh, a page which you are owning. Let me tell you boy, this is Wikipedia and not Bangladesh, people from all sorts of backgrounds have a right to work on any article that they want to work on, so whether you welcome me or not, I will keep working on it. Your empty blames cannot stop me. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I see you keep removing and editing my comments. Please watch your language. I don't have to be a supporter of Bangladesh's government to defend accurate history. But unfortunately, your edits have shown a strong bias towards the attitude of the current Pakistani government, which is the first in history to adopt genocide denial as a policy. Given your justifiably democratic support for this pathetic regime, I have every right to challenge your revisionist distortions.--Akbar the Great (talk) 13:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Akbar the Great: Dude, I only removed those messages in which you personally attacked me, even some of those I did not remove. Please stop restoring them, I have every right to remove them. Once you will start watching your language and learn to talk in civil manner, there will be no need for anyone to remove your comments. Why don't you understand the same thing that I don't have to be a supporter of Pakistan government to check and verify the content in any article including Wikipedia: WikiProject Bangladesh articles. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Malik and Zehri

I seem to have gotten ahead of reality. Still, it seems like a done deal. I assume it will be confirmed in the next few days at which point I will want to re-update the pages... unless I am wrong, and we get a surprise challenge. Curro2 (talk) 01:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Curro2: Sure thing, just revert me when change actually happens, there is a process of election which must take place. Sorry for reverting you. I know how upsetting it is when you assemble everything and someone just reverts you in one click. Sheriff | report | 02:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

No no no you are right. I jumped the gun. Curro2 (talk) 05:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

MIT

You should have received an email from me with a link to a registration form - could you please either complete the form or email me if you did not receive it? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Ditto for OUP. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Ping. Please respond in the next week if you are still interested in receiving access. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I just submitted the form for MIT, I hope, I still have a chance to get access! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Submitted for OUP as well! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Liaquat Ali Khan

Hi,

The reason you did not dind where the source said Mandal Jat is the link to the source brings you to page 118, not 117 (scroll up to 117). Secondly, page 27 in the Annals of Kannal mentions his families Jat origin, not page 31. Also note, that although typically many Punjabis' spell Jat as Jutt or Jatt, in Wikipedia Jat is the standardized form. And lastly, Marhal, Mandal, or Mahal are derivatives of the name of the same clan (view the Marhal page). I don't think I can make things clearer than this.

---Thank you Nawabmalhi (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nawabmalhi: I did read page 117 and 118 both before reverting you, both pages have no mention of Liaquat Ali Khan and no mention of words "Jat" or "Marhal", they do mention "Mandal" in relation to some Nawab Azmat Ali Khan. I did not get chance to look at page 27 yet, once I do, I will let you know whether your edit can stay or not since I see you already reverted me again. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 05:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown Its talking about Liaquat Ali Khans family, The specific name mentioned was Nawab Azmat Ali Khan, the patriarch of the Ali Khan Nawabs of Karnal, but is talking about the Ali Khan's in general that is why it is written he is born in a Jat family. Nawab Azmat Ali Khan was Liaquat Ali Khan's uncle who died childless and was suceeded by Liaquat's father Nawab Rustam Ali Khan, who was suceeded by Liaquat. Again,Marhal, Mandal, or Mahal are derivatives of the name of the same clan (view the Marhal page).---Thank you Nawabmalhi (talk) 06:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Pakistan

Hi, I read your response earlier. It says they were acting on a previous clause in the constitution in 1973 to promote Urdu. They haven't changed the laws yet though, it still stands as it is: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2015/0729/Why-Pakistan-is-changing-its-official-language-from-English-to-Urdu.-Akhila3151996 (talk) 06:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not what the sources say, one source says, "Urdu to replace English as official language" the other says "PM orders implementation of Urdu as official language in government departments", so what's left there. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, SheriffIsInTown!

Happy New Year!

SheriffIsInTown,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Kautilya3 (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

@Kautilya3: Thank you and same to you, it was very thoughtful of you. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 05:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Can I take this opportunity to invite you to join WP:INDOPAK? It seems that we are under-represented by Pakistan at the moment. Hopefully, we make progress on some new initiatives in the new year. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hussain Haqqani

Can you kindly specify on what basis and under what rules is Habel reverting my edits? Which rules of Wiki BLP am I violating by presenting sourced information? How can I stop him from reverting my edits over and over again? --GreenBeret65 (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

A specific POV is being pushed by some editors on the Hussain Haqqani page, I might be wrong but I believe them to be Kautilya and Hebel, time and time again other editors have voiced their concerns about the biased nature of the very article to which we have reverted to right now, even so and so that the prime witness Mansoor Ijaz was forced to come to the talk page and urged the mentioned editors to stop pushing a specific POV. Is there anything which can be done? Especially when the judgement of the commission which goes again Hussain haqqani is not even mentioned. A sinister attempt is also being made to link the memogate scandal with Osama`s killing infact the very section of the memogate starts by mentioning the Osama`s killing? Why is this being done, I cant tell but this surely needs to be redone. I am new to Wiki and would like to know what is it that can be done especially when the content violates the integrity of a fine person like Mansoor Ijaz?

@GreenBeret65: I am sorry, I have so much in my watchlist that I am not getting a chance to review what's being done on Husain Haqqani page lately but I definitely disagree with the revert which was done by Hebel on my last edit. I want to give a meticulous response on the talk page for which I need some time and preparation. At this time, if we include you and the IP, we almost have 60/40 division of opinion. Regarding, WP:BLP, people are using the interpretations which suit their edits. I will also encourage you to voice your opinion at Talk:Husain Haqqani instead of my page. not that you are not welcomed to do that but it's better to voice it where it matters. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sheriff I am under consideration for being banned by the Wikipedia, how can this be? Only for not allowing someone to push a specific POV? GreenBeret65 (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I am unaware of complete circumstances thus unable to give my opinion but I know that bit that you cannot be blocked if you don't violate a policy which calls for a block. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Sheriff, I hope you don't mind if I drop this here. GreenBeret65, first of all see [WP:BLOCKBANDIFF]]; there's a huge difference between blocking and banning, and it's not hypothetical. Second, no one is threatening to ban you. Third, no one is threatening to block you, though you were warned about edit warring, and edit warring can lead to a block--long or short. In your case, right now, if you were to continue, probably short. Fourth, and Sheriff, this concerns you too, about these numbers: it's not just numbers, it's also quality of argument. If you're referring to the IP who totally messed up the article beginning with this edit, they don't have a leg to stand on (also, they're blocked for a while because of their inexcusable behavior and their BLP violations). I could explain at length what's wrong with their edits--it would start with faulty grammar and punctuation and generally terrible English, a second remark might be about the absolutely unacceptable tone ("The trouble is,..." as if this is Wikipedia's opinion), and it could end with their presenting non-neutral information as if it were fact. So that IP, don't count them. Finally, there's a lot less interpretative room in the BLP than you may think; it's easy to say "it's all interpretation" but backing that up is not so simple. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

JF-17

You do realise that SLAF is a part of Sri Lanka government.Also I am just stating what SLAF said. Warrior Covert (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

On the subject of the JF-17 page name - there is a naming convention, established through firm WP:CONSENSUS, that aircraft articles are named using "Manufacturer+Designation+Name" for consistency across all aircraft articles. "CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder" is therefore the name that the establshed standard through consensus requires the page to be at, no matter the search hit results. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: I learned that after i put in speedy deletion for the redirect but i was reviewing that policy on aircraft names and i think the page name is not set according to that but i will get back to you on that later after i learn more. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it is set according to that. Manufacturer (CAC and PAC), designation (JF-17), name (Thunder). This was established after a lengthy debate to determine consensus over five years ago. It's been challenged and it's stood firm; the current page title is, per the consensus standard, the correct one - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Restoration of personal attack

Hey Sheriff, it is not a personal attack, its his POV. He expressed an opinion, which I am not supporting or denying. If you disagree feel free to post below it or ask him to remove it but don't remove it yourself. From the policy:"In the event of rudeness or incivility on the part of another editor, it may be appropriate to discuss the offending words with that editor, and to request that editor to change that specific wording. Some care is necessary, however, so as not to further inflame the situation. It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment. Exceptions include to remove obvious trolling or vandalism, or if the comment is on your own user talk page. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor." It is not derogatory. Uncivil maybe but definitely not derogatory. Have a good day. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Vinegarymass911, It's no use discussing with him, if i discuss with him, he further attacks me and insults me so discussing with him is like inviting more incivility towards you. You check out below, how many discussions has taken place between us, you will see baseless accusations from him in each conversation:

1. Diff

2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Shams (East Pakistan)

(There were more but i am not including those, don't have time to assemble all of those)

Template:RPA is for these type of situations when the offending editor is not willing to address the issue in a polite and civil manner. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I thought it was unacceptable. Calling some one a POV-pusher in the midst of a heated discussion is one thing, but going to a public notice board and finger pointing at some one is quite extreme. I think Sheriff is within his rights to object to it or to take it to the admins. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Vinegarymass911 has a history of questionable edits. But that's something which can be touched later. Kautilya, I expected better from an admin. My post on the WPB talkpage came only after weeks of dealing with Sheriff's continuous removals. Its like he has a dedicated agenda. The way you feel is unfortunate.--Akbar the Great (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Akbar the Great: May almighty help you and give you peace! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The almighty has been very kind to me and has given me peace! As well as the courage to stand up to distortionists like yourself.--Akbar the Great (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

You will find me equally courageous enough to verify your distortions as well. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 05:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Akbar the Great: Since, you accused me again of having an agenda. I will like to answer you as to how I got pulled into Bangladesh articles and I will like to ping Kautilya3 and Vinegarymass911 into this since you mentioned them in one of your previous messages and they are entitled to see your good faith towards them as well. Now, let me tell you, how I got pulled into Bangladesh articles. Few months back, I was reading up on something and I saw Bangladesh's population figures, when I checked Bangladesh article, I found them outdated so I updated them and since then Bangladesh was in my watchlist. Few weeks ago when I saw your extensive shifting of text on that page, I started evaluating your edits and a few things struck out so I started checking the sources and found some of stuff not according to the sources so I removed it but you reverted and an edit war ensued. In that questionable text there were links to Al-Badr and Al-Shams, I clicked on Al-Badr, it took me to Al-Badr in Mecca, I clicked on Al-Shams and it took me to a page filled with citation needed tags and only two inaccessible Bengali language sources. Not knowing anything about these entities before, it was natural for me to take it to AFD and by the way that was my first AFD ever. You accused me of political motivation on that AFD and said that you are accusing me because of my userboxes, since I assumed that the page will be kept, I was not checking that discussion regularly so I did not notice your last message but when I checked the discussion after it was closed, I really felt insulted by your message so I replied you here instead since it was kind of related to that topic but instead of taking your words back, your harsh comments towards me continued. How I got to Mukti Bahini? Well, Al-Shams was in my watchlist since AFD and I was curious to verify the sources. There was a mention of rape by Pakistan Army and Al-Shams so I checked the source. The source mentioned Mukti Bahini as well so I went to Mukti Bahini and found it in WP:FANPAGE state and that text not being there. That's how I got into Bangladesh articles, I had no agenda whatsoever, I can swear by anything. I have been wanting to check Bangladesh Liberation War for so many days now but I am afraid for your allegations, my friend. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 06:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

That's all wonderful, but you still continue to evade the serious content disputes that have arisen in several talk pages. I have dealt with you for three weeks. My dispute with you was not about population figures, but your removal of all mention of 1971 atrocities from the Bangladesh page (except, absurdly, those targeting Hindus). The dispute was not about Al Badr or Al Shams. It was about how you insist on contradicting sources on A K Fazlul Huq and Maulana Bhashani. It was about how you kept removing Bangladesh's role in UN peacekeeping, in spite of sources. You have accused such content of being "anti-Pakistan", "promoting Bangladesh", "against the Pakistani leadership"and other highly ridiculous charges.

My edits are fully supported by reliable sources. It's there for everyone to see.

It's also clear to everyone that your talk page is nothing but a hate festival on me.

And @Kautilya3: you have been nothing but a toothless administrator. Hope you grow some teeth from real life!

--Akbar the Great (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry Kautilya3 for mistaking you as an administrator. But you posting hostile personal commentary one someone else's good faith talk page post is also extreme. How unfortunate that even Wikipedia has to endure the bimbo Nawaz-Modi brotherhood. And yes I am fed up of Sheriff removing content on false grounds.--Akbar the Great (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Dude, stop claiming false grounds and address them on the proper talk pages and in proper context without accusing anyone and without straying off the topic and in a civil manner. I didn't evade any content dispute rather I was the one to stop the war and start a talk thread most of the time. I have dealt with you for three weeks as well. Whatever I removed was unsourced at the time of removal or was not supported by sources. Your accusations do not mean anything to me anymore because you have been proven a habitual accuser after accusing Vinegarymass911 and Kautilya3. Bunching together conflicts and edit disputes from different pages and claiming that your position was right and mine was wrong without relative context does not have any value. The edit history is there on those pages with my summary descriptions and yours as well. Talk threads are there as well. I challenged your edits on valid policy grounds and mentioned the reasons in summary lines or on talk pages. I am not sure why you are mentioning the settled matters here, when I challenged Bangladesh's role at UN, it was unsourced, you sourced it and I accepted it. Its called settled matter and it does not warrant mentioning. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 06:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Akbar the GreatKautilya3Sheriff | ☎ 911 Everyone lets put an end to this. Things were said, accusations made, edits reverted and feelings hurt. Lets put it in the past and look forward to cooperation in the future. All of these does not benefit Wikipedia or anyone for that matter. Forgive and Forget. We are free to edit any article we want as long as it adheres to policy. We are all trying to improve Wikipedia. No use crying over spilled milk, whats done is done. To a fresh start. Cheers. PS we could have spent this energy trying to find what happened to Jon Snow. We Must Know-Vinegarymass911 (talk) 06:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Vinegarymass911: I am only at the third episode of Season 2 so I definitely do not know what happened to him. I will send a party after him. :) Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Akbar the Great: pray tell what issues you have with my editing and if you are going to mention me please tag me. I am open to criticism. I have made mistakes I will admit that, but I learn from experience and my mistakes.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 06:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Vinegarymass911: The only issue i can think of is that you are working on a Bangladesh article but you did not obtain prior authorization from Akbar to do that. You should have asked him if you are allowed to do that. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Akbar the Great: Please do not address Kautilya3 or anyother editor from my talk page anymore, they have their own talk pages, you can address them there or address them from your own.

Coming back 5 days after you left the original message and making it nastier than it was before doesn't make any sense. Its like you are looking to pick fights. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 05:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

North Korean nuclear test

You moved "2016 North Korean nuclear test" to "2016 North Korea nuclear test." I think this was in error, as I explained on the talk page. You may wish to respond. NPguy (talk) 02:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Muhammad

The Muhammad article is under discretionary sanctions and you have been notified of those sanctions[2]. Edits like this one are very much against an established consensus and are a violation of our neutral point of view policy.

I am imposing a 1 month topic ban against you regarding all pages related to Muhammad broadly construed. Topic bans are explained here. I am keeping this ban short because I hope that you can edit in a neutral fashion in the area in the future. If after this ban expires there are further issues with neutrality in that area the discretionary sanctions allow topic bans up to 1 year in length.

Information about discretionary sanctions can be found here: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions. HighInBC 20:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC: It seems like you were very quick to issue a ban against me without even hearing me out and the reason you gave was "[3]. Edits like this one are very much against an established consensus and are a violation of our neutral point of view policy." but you did not explain what was wrong with that edit, it was properly sourced and source almost exactly say what I put in the article. You said it was "against consensus and neutral point of view" but I totally do not understand how? There are almost over 50 edits on that page between my edit series of today and the last time. Nobody discusses and obtains consensus before editing that page then why editors with pro-Islamic views are being demanded of that. It's like saying "either ban yourself from editing or we will ban you". I am really disappointed by this. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The use of the honorific (PBUH) has been discussed to ad infinitum, there is even a notice every time you edit linking to: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Islam-related_articles#Islamic_honorifics. Topics under discretionary sanctions have a long history of disruptive editing and are held to a far higher standard of conduct. It is up to you to understand our neutrality policy. If you don't see how adding "peace be upon him" after his name is an inappropriate tone for an encyclopedia then you may not possess the neutrality required to edit on this topic.

I am not saying "ban yourself or I will", I sincerely hope that after this short ban expires that you will be able to contribute to the topic in a neutral fashion. Some people have accused you of being a single purpose account, you could use this time to show them they are wrong and that you are here to contribute to the encyclopedia as a whole. HighInBC 21:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I am going out to a job right now, but I will be back in the evening if you want to discuss this further. HighInBC 21:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, HighInBC, i have been holding off this discussion because I did not review the RFC which discusses these discretionary sanctions because previously I started reading the one on Pakistan-India-Afghanistan and I still couldn't finish it. RFC's are just too long to read but I do plan to read and understand them. As for warnings while doing edits, they do not appear when you do edits from a mobile device but anyway without reviewing the RFC, I still think that adding the honorific like I did cannot call for a ban, since I have the page in my watchlist and I have seen that people are still discussing the matter. Allow me to repeat and this is my point of view as well that as a Muslim editor, it's my obligation to add honorific like I did otherwise whatever was added was sourced and I did not evade any policy while doing so. If it was just the matter of honorific, there were other ways to deal with the issue than a right away ban. I think the editor who started screaming at the talk page overreacted which made you to overreact and rush to ban. You also said people claimed that my account is an SPA, that's that one editor which claimed that but if you look at my edit history and all the pages I have edited are listed at my user page, you will find out that I edit on wide variety of subjects. There was a working consensus going on, on that page, I did adjust my edits after Jeppiz objected to those. I think we should not ban people in haste.

I was waiting to review the RFC before appealing you to reconsider the ban but then I thought by the time I will review the RFC, month will already be over and thinking that I dropped that idea but seeing the conversation developing on that page, I thought I should contact you and request you to reconsider if you think you might have overreacted or acted in a haste. Thank you Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

My concern is that you have said that it is your obligation to add the honorific. It is a requirement that Wikipedia users edit in a neutral fashion. I respect that your beliefs may obligate you to add the honorific, however it is still not compatible with the goals of Wikipedia. The issue of the honorific has been discussed for about a decade now and the consensus has consistently been against it.

You mentioned other ways to deal with your obligation regarding the honorific, I would love to hear them. If I can be made confident that your edits in the area will be neutral and not unduly influenced by your personal beliefs I can lift the ban. HighInBC 03:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Abusive account

I am really surprised that you thought I created those sock puppets. We have content dispute and I have nothing personal against you. Cheers! Vinegarymass911 (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Vinegarymass911, No, I did not think that you were behind those accounts but it was important for me to detail the background especially when I thanked you for an edit on 2016 Ouagadougou attacks and those abusive users thanked me for my response to your "Oppose" vote on Talk:2016 Ouagadougou attacks. I thought these were interesting circumstances and needed to be mentioned as I also thought that someone might have been trying to create a bad blood between you and me and trying to implicate you in this. I am sorry if you thought that my intention was otherwise. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey, glad that was cleared up. Quite devious to thank you on a opposing vote to me from those accounts. I look forward to working with you. With RegardsVinegarymass911 (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Quick CU requests

Hello. Please return to WP:SPI and give some resoning for your quick CU requests. However, please note that the privacy policy will likely prevent us from revealing the information that you're asking for. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I must apologize for not seeing your reply prior to the request being archived. I can tell you that the location was many thousands of kilometers away from Auckland. If you have any other questions, I will answer if I can, but it may take some time as I'm currently on vacation. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@DoRD: Can you at least tell me the country name? Auckland was just an example though!

Also, why this (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jinnah ka lund choos) is not showing up on the main page under list of open requests, I needed to add more suspects to it! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

the eggs

I archived your discussion about "eggs" into my archive just in case the guy is watching my page, which seems to have been his tactic. He saw a warning posted and made his accounts. Well I was not banned but I usually edit India/Pakistan and Islam articles. So the guy is definitely there. I'll check my edits from that period and reply here on ur page. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: I am sure, he is watching mine as well. The hate which drove him to do this, he might be watching mine in his sleep as well. Anyway, can you get me the date of notifications, I don't think you can get the exact time if the notification is over a day old but if you have a way to find the time, that would be helpful as well. Also, the pattern and the number of "thanks" you received. For example, I got 8 in total, 4 from one account, then 2 from other, then 1 from first again and 1 from second, all in a span of 2 minutes. It seems as the person went to my contribs page and which ever edits were on the top of the list, he clicked on "Thanks" for those. Any information would be helpful. Once I have the dates, I will check to see what happened before that and try to connect the threads if possible. And no, I am not afraid of haters, let him watch for what all I care. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Gomutra

If a sentence you've added to the Gomutra article has been challenged on the talk page and removed, you can join the discussion there. You can't just keep adding it to another article.

Feel free to add the bit about the cola drink elsewhere in the article. It just doesn't belong in the section on religion. The fact that the drink is being produced in a Hindu-majority country has as little to with Hinduism as, say, the beef produced in Germany has to do with Lutheranism. Uanfala (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Bacha Khan University attack

Hey, would you mind commenting at Talk:Bacha Khan University attack#Reactions "cleanup". I removed the quotes from foreign representatives, because I didn't see how relevant they were, not because they weren't cited. I'm curious as to why you picked out the UN and EU as sources for your information. Especially the EU, since it uses a primary source indicating that it is your opinion to include that. Jolly Ω Janner 01:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 21Vianet

Hello SheriffIsInTown,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged 21Vianet for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Denver F. 17:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Balochistan, Pakistan

FYI: [4] Curro2 (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Curro2: Thank you Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 21Vianet, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Azure and Microsoft Exchange (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) 13:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

your edits in mohenjo-daro

Let me suggest politely that you not use nonsensical third rate sources. All sources are not equal on Wikipedia. Please tell on the Mohenjo-daro talk page why that source is reliable. what is its citation index? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI - Fowler has reverted your edits a second time. [5] Curro2 (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Curro2: Not sure, what to do man! I guess, I am going to retire, I have had enough. People have setup their own domains here and they try to push away anybody who tries to improve articles which they think they own. There is someone owning Bangladesh articles and if you go and try to improve any article under that project, they will revert you just because you are Pakistani. Now, here its the case of laziness as well, undo is easy, just one click and who cares if the other person have spent hours researching the material. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 09:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Relax buddy! We learn from every dispute situation and get better as editors. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

:) Please don't leave Wikipedia on my account! And I thought you were a Hindu nationalist! The problem is the book you are using, which it turns out is not Hindu nationalist, but still is a somewhat non-mainstream work which uses a mostly religious/mythological text, the Rig Veda, to deduce things that properly belong to the domain of archaeology. The book itself says, "This is the first investigation of its kind and the conclusions of the study are no less original. Besides establishing the rationality of the Rgvedic narratives, it shows the events and their agents to be historical in the light of available archaeological material." In other words, this is not exactly a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. It is the first I have heard that Mohenjo-daro is a Bengali version of a Sindhi word. It is true that one of the early excavators of Mohenjo-daro, Rakhaldas Bannerjee, was Bengali, but it is very unlikely that he would have changed the name to a Bengali name, given that he was working for the British directed Archaeological Survey of (British) India. I encourage you to find better references for the article, but this doesn't seem to be one. No hurt feelings, I hope, and my apologies. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

PS The reason why I mentioned "Hindu nationalist," is that there is a revisionist trend among some Hindu nationalist Indian historians and archaeologists, who are claiming, on scant evidence, that the Indus civilization was Vedic, that all its artifacts, culture, administrative and political systems are of Vedic Hindu origin, although, as I've said above, your source probably is not saying this. These same very people have been claiming that they've found a new Indus site, and they have found thousands, wherever their foot hits a stone anywhere in India. They seem to be upset that the Indus civilization is mostly in Pakistan. (I'm exaggerating a little, but it is one thing one has to watch out for in all IVC related pages.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I have heard on a TV channel, a Pakistani presenter saying that the official name "Mohenjo-daro means "Heart pleasing city" while the original name "Moenjo-daro" meant "Mountain of the dead" so i thought let's do some research on that since i had seen some bickering on Mohenjo-daro in the past about the meaning of the name or what spelling should be used. So those two sources were the result of that research. Now i have no idea, who is Hindu nationalist when it comes to the authors as both of them have Hindu names but having a Hindu name does not make someone Hindu nationalist, the book names have words "Rigveda" in them so the author might have written the book from Hinduism perspective but the text that i included in the article does not talk about Hinduism or Hindu nationalism, it merely talks about the meaning of the name which does not hint anywhere about it being from Hinduism perspective. I am for giving the coverage to every perspective and leave to the reader to come to the conclusion. If one writer says that the word means "Mound of the dead" or "The hill of the corpses", the other says "The place with doors" or "The place of doors", we should mention all of them, that's what encyclopedia is about. Why should we favor one meaning over the other. I mean i would be careful if an author is a Hindu nationalist and says "Mohenjo-daro" means "A place with Hindu temples", that would be Hindu nationalism (i might include that one as well just to give greater coverage to the subject though). Here is another one, this one says it means "Mound of the dead", we should source that meaning as well.

And i don't know anything about citation index or how to check it? It would be helpful if you can give me a link to some tool or page describing that. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Here are some reliable IVC sources. If you stick to them, you can't go wrong. You could add them as bibliography to the Mohenjo-daro pge:

• Allchin, Bridget (1997). Origins of a Civilization: The Prehistory and Early Archaeology of South Asia. New York: Viking. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Bridget Allchin; Raymond Allchin (1982), The Rise of Civilization in India and Pakistan, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-28550-6
• Dani, Ahmad Hassan (1984). Short History of Pakistan (Book 1). University of Karachi. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Dani, Ahmad Hassan; Mohen, J-P. (eds.) (1996). History of Humanity, Volume III, From the Third Millennium to the Seventh Century BC. New York/Paris: Routledge/UNESCO. ISBN 0-415-09306-6. {{cite book}}: |author2= has generic name (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Kenoyer, Jonathan Mark (1998). Ancient cities of the Indus Valley Civilisation. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-577940-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Kenoyer, Jonathan M.; Heuston, Kimberley Burton (2005), The Ancient South Asian World, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-522243-2
• Jane McIntosh (2008), The Ancient Indus Valley: New Perspectives, ABC-CLIO, ISBN 978-1-57607-907-2
• Mughal, Mohammad Rafique (1997). Ancient Cholistan, Archaeology and Architecture. Ferozesons. ISBN 969-0-01350-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Parpola, Asko (19 May 2005), Study of the Indus Script (PDF) {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Pittman, Holly (1984). Art of the Bronze Age: southeastern Iran, western Central Asia, and the Indus Valley. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. ISBN 9780870993657.
• Possehl, Gregory L. (11 November 2002), The Indus Civilization: A Contemporary Perspective, Rowman Altamira, ISBN 978-0-7591-1642-9
• Wright, Rita P. (2009), The Ancient Indus: Urbanism, Economy, and Society, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-57219-4, retrieved 29 September 2013

best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Great work on finding a good source. I think, though, you might have the ISBN of the E-book (which doesn't have page numbers). Also, it is usually more accurate to give the chapter title and author of the chapter in the author, as Bates et al have only edited the book. If you use the following: Fukao, Junichi (2015), "Cities in India: An archaeological perspective", in Crispin Bates, Minoru Mio (eds) (ed.), Cities in South Asia, Routledge, p. 18, ISBN 978-1-317-56513-0 {{citation}}: |editor= has generic name (help), it will give the reader the full information, and, by clicking the book title, will take the reader straight to page 18, where he or she can check for themselves. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Thanks for your help, I will try to get better on this. :) How did you find the author name? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome. The author's name is right under the chapter title on page 17. (If you are not in the US or Canada, you might not be able to see this.  :) ). Google books allows different degrees of access in different country locations. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

KPK

Thanks for your great efforts on KPK province article. But language map is incorrect. As per Census 1998 Tehsil demographic data. Kohistan all tehsil are Kohistani Langauge majiority. All three tehsil of D I khan are Punjabi ( Saraiki dialect) majiority. Mansehra all Tehsil are Punjabi (Hindko Dialect Majiority). This map is even ignoring Tank, Nowshera, Kohat, Peshawer city centrals having Punjabi (Hindko/ Saraiki dialects) majiority as reflected in Urban demographic of these Tehsils. Tiger khan has up loaded a pro pashtun map. Thanks Burnfloo (talk) 07:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Burnfloo: The map was added by another editor. I just kept it in good faith not being that familiar with demographics of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa personally. I will double check it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 09:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Your comment ...

... very welcome at Talk:India#Comments_invited_on_additions_to_Modern_History_section_made_on_26_January_2015. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Primary Sources

Sorry. I read the text of the article and assumed they had been added in in the edits I reverted. Should have checked properly - my bad. (The article is full of primary sources though!) --regentspark (comment) 16:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Languages of Pakistan

you are adding some content and reference it with bbc report but remember that its just a Media report it does not means that they conducted a servey or census and they know the exact figure. Now 1998 census figures should be kept ,in 2016 government of Pakistan is going to start census across Pakistam, So you can then update languages and population info according to latest sources as Census report is submitted--HassanKhan95 (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@HassanKhan95: Dude, BBC is a reliable thrid-party secondary source in this matter and i am quite right to use that. The source being used for 1998 census figures is a primary source and should not be used. How about i suggest the same thing to you that keep 2015 figures based on BBC report and then replace them with 2016 figures from a secondary source when they are available and as for your summary line that you "understand my purpose", no you do not have an iota of sense about my purpose. My purpose is to improve Wikipedia across the board with a major focus on Wikipedia: WikiProject Pakistan pages. I have been accused of many things while editing and i will wear whatever hat you will put on my head happily as well. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Sheriff is right. The numbers don't have to come from census data and the BBC could be using other estimates. I'd go with the recent BBC numbers over 17 year old census data. --regentspark (comment) 21:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

KPK

I have done language table just because of your great efforts using your insertions/ sources and relevant langauage articles on wikipedia. Please give a feed back. Burnfloo (talk) 09:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Burnfloo: You inserted some original research into it, I will see how others react to it but to me it looks good overall. I might make some minor adjustments and do some research to find better sources. If something wouldn't line up according to a reliable source then we might have to make more changes.

Major Issues which I can quickly point out are:

1. Mention of Arabic not supported by source and according to my knowledge it does not have much influence and understanding beyond offcourse reading The Holy Quran, even that many people do not understand without a translation in their first language
2. Highlighting Khowar over other Chitrali languages, wordpress not a reliable source
3. Dialect of Pashto not supported by a source
4. Area percentage is an original research but calculation might be correct as we know which language is spoken in which district, according to my knowledge, this is called WP:SYNTH but I might be wrong because I never read that policy myself. Lol

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your feed back. specific points Reply is as follows

1. Arabic is thought in class 6,7 and 8, Religious Schools (Madrasas) and also in diffrent Hajj/ Umrah piligram courses
2. Khowar is lingua franca in Chitral for other minor dardic languages in the region.
3. Dialect of Pashto details are available in ethnologue, wiki plus many language books of pashto. Bannu / Waziri is very diffrent. I can understand them all.
4. Area percentage is a good faith edit with intentions to help language students around the world.

I will try to get some sources to make them more pro policy, Thank you Burnfloo (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

clarification regarding your statement about lack of opinion in my cited reference

Dear sherrifisintown,There was no hate speech and POV in my cited reference.It was as neutral as reference of Dawn News.I have read document completely and there were only facts not opinion.Also,if you find reference of source to be filled of hate speech,then the reference of Dawn news is POV too. A9452819015 (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Sunshine for u!

		Sunshine!
		Hello SheriffIsInTown! Bhootrina (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Bhootrina (talk) 06:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)