Jump to content

User talk: Kashmiri

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thewikisquad (talk | contribs) at 18:14, 17 December 2015 (New talk section: please consider the inclusion of page peer Viqar Ul aslam). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Committed identity: 93e503f09fd69f42d86838f9f8ba05e2af45efbdf563c26448bd87e7979cb42b983bdb36e4121469aca4cfb936318ee9c7745a40aefb1d81504f74edc16f11fe is a SHA-512 commitment to this user's real-life identity.

Map: Durrani Empire

The map of the empire in the peak time exactly the same as the current international border which is not correct. Also, according to some references, Mashhad was under control of Shahrukh Afshar until the conquer by Qajar Dynasty. [1] [2] [3] [4]

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qajar_dynasty
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Khan_Qajar
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nader_Shah
  4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mashhad

AfD policy

Hi Kashmiri - I noticed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faqr-e-Iqbal (2nd nomination) that you commented that the main contributor is required to abstain from voting. That is, in fact, not true - the author of the article can make his/her case like everyone else. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion for a brief note about this. I would actually argue that the creator and main contributors have the most valuable opinions in these discussions as they obviously put in some time to create or improve an article, so they must think it's worth something. I hope this makes sense. Cheers - "Pepper" @ 18:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pepper:, point taken, will keep it in mind for the future. Regards, kashmiri TALK 19:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi Kashmiri. I saw that you were in the process of providing diff evidence for several suspected sock puppets, but that you haven't followed up on it. Perhaps you have forgotten, so here is a reminder. - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HyperGaruda:, thanks for the reminder. Will do it shortly! Regards, kashmiri TALK 18:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 9 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Lilian Silburn

The article Lilian Silburn has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. rayukk | talk 23:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Please stop deleting Karachi related articles WikiBulova (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC) You also don't need seperate Kashmir Railway either it should be redirected to Pakistan Railway. WikiBulova (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiBulova: I am not deleting anything. You create promotional articles that duplicate 70% of the content of existing articles, mostly by copy and paste. Me and other editors tried to point you out that this is unnecessary and goes against Wikipedia policies, which you are welcome to study. Thank you also to read WP:BRD. Besides, I fail to understand the connection between Kashmir Railway and your Karachi articles. kashmiri TALK 16:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not surprised since you have also failed to understand Media in Karachi. WikiBulova (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiBulova: Please undo all your changes to the articles on Kashmir Shaivism I edited, or I am taking the matter to the Administrators. kashmiri TALK 16:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you have not done it, I am reverting the changes myself and proceeding with WP:ANI report. kashmiri TALK 17:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sufis & List of Sufi saints

What's the difference between them? Primary and secondary? 68.100.166.227 (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

: List of Sufi orders is just what it says: a list of Sufi orders. If you want to have a list of most influential Sufi orders, why don't you create a separate article? Otherwise there will be confusion. Please note that the second article should be referenced to reliable sources because we Wikipedians cannot ourselves decide who is influential and who is not. Otherwise, great job to-date, carry on. kashmiri TALK 01:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry didn't notice your title. The first one is supposed to list all the Sufis (I know it may sound funny). The second one has to list all Sufi orders. I have a problem with the second one, because all lists should either be referenced to a source (which will prove that all list items are notable) or should list other Wikipedia articles. But the second list has plenty of red links and unlinked names, and is totally unreferenced. Should be really cleaned up. kashmiri TALK 01:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think both of them attempts to list Sufis, but the second list contains most of the people from India, and some of the names appears in both of these lists.. There are overlapping parts...

68.100.166.227 (talk) 02:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are right. I have no problem with combining these lists into a single one. Do you think it would be a good idea? If so, feel free to go ahead, I will support it although I won't have time to do it myself for now. kashmiri TALK 12:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frontiers Media removal of academic editor blog posts

According to his Wikipedia page, Jonathan Eisen "is the academic editor-in-chief of the open access journal PLOS Biology". He probably has a dozen other affiliations in scientific publishing, from a quick google I found Biology Direct, PLoS Computational Biology, Molecular Biology and Evolution, Genome Research, Journal of Molecular Evolution, Microbiology, National Academy of Sciences - Committee on Life Sciences, ASM Communications.

That is what I'd call an "expert" in scientific publishing! (And his blog is called "award winning", and his blogging/twitter activity is even mentioned in Nature: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038%2F4591050a too.)

Dorothy Bishop is listed as "editorial advisor" for "BMC Psychology", as "editorial board / former editor" of "Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry", as "Board of Associate Editors" for "COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY", as "Advisory Editorial Board" for "International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders", and "Editorial board" for "International Journal of Research and Practice"; "Editorial board" for "Applied Psycholinguistics", all with very different publishers. Just a few of her activity that I could find. She clearly has an "expert" opinion on scientific publishing, because she has been doing this for over 20 years. Her blog is also prize-winning: http://goodthinkingsociety.org/winners-of-2012-uk-science-blog-prize/

Clearly, both are highly respected scientists, with award-winning blogs, that serve as editors in many journals. Their low opinion on Frontier is a "reliable source" of Frontiers spam problem.

You may want to reconsider your opinion, otherwise I would suggest a WP:THIRDOPINION --HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that they are scientists in their respoctive fields, their blogs could surely be quoted when discussing matters belonging to biology or psychology. However, the statement you are trying to substatiate has nothing to do with these fields. An IT expert opinion would have more relevance, because in the subject mail spam, a biology professor is as as much of an "expert" as any John Doe.
See, simply because a known scientist has complained of email does not turn him/her into an authority that should be quoted! Definitely it's not a reliable source for a public encyclopaedia. Please note that "academic editor" is an entirely different job (and skill set) than just "editor". However, I am happy to seek third opinion if you prefer so, although if I could chose I'd rather ask someone uninvolved in this article/topic. Regards, kashmiri TALK 17:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is about scientific publishing. They are experienced editors, so they are experts on publishing. An IT opinion would be much less relevant in my opinion. Deevy also discusses the problem of "editorial practices", so we might even want to cite her in other places, too. She writes e.g.: "Questions are being raised about the quality of editing and reviewing in Frontiers." --HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Stalking

Stop stalking me !! You seem to be mean vindictive person !!! WikiBulova (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiBulova: Can I know the reasons of your revert? What does "colwdith" stand for? Note Wikipedia is not your private notepad but a public service that anyone is free to edit and improve, including me. You now seem to deliberately damage wiki coding which is disruptive. kashmiri TALK 13:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, new editors sometimes require additional monitoring, I think you should be grateful that someone follows and corrects your mistakes. kashmiri TALK 13:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have proven to be stalker and mean vindictive person. WikiBulova (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:PERSONAL so that you don't get blocked for your comments towards fellow editors. kashmiri TALK 13:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki Stalking is also a serious issue. You can go ahead and report me. That will also expose you as a serial stalker. WikiBulova (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please consider the inclusion of page peer Viqar Ul aslam

As now there are solid links like Greater Kashmir link which shows the credibility of sources used and verifies other details, the page is following the guidelines as it provides reliable sources like Greater Kashmir news paper. Please check again and help in including the page, your help is appreciated! Thank you Thewikisquad (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC) Thewikisquad (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kashmiri&oldid=695666229"