User talk:Uanfala

Archives

.tmp

up to Aug 2016

Sep–Dec 2016

2017 (Jan–June, July–Dec)

2018 (Jan–June, July–Dec)

2019 (Jan–June, July–Dec)

2020 (Jan–June, July–Dec)

2021 (Jan–Dec)

2022 (Jan–Apr)

Has this user made a silly mistake? Click on the trout to notify them!

Zeeshan Mehood

I was really surprised to find blatant hoaxes by Zeeshan Mehmood's IPs in core articles such as Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and Gilgit Baltistan which I had to just remove: [1], [2]. I came across a whole host of hoaxes by his IPs, some of which had been there for years really surprised as to how someone didn't notice them till now. Really egregious are his edits about the "provincial symbols", just FYI no province/territory of Pakistan has official symbols besides Sindh (which are limited to a bird, mammal and tree), and Pakistan's symbols are limited to these. Any other listings of symbols (sports, dances, animals etc.) are blatant hoaxes by him. What makes it more difficult is that he repeats his hoaxes across articles so it becomes difficult to easily identify them.

Please see if you can keep an eye on the provinces of Pakistan (Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, Gilgit Baltistan, Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan, Azad Kashmir, ICT)?) for hoaxes/edits by his socks, other articles that need to be under watch are the national symbols ones (i.e., Dish, Epic, Flower, Patron saint, Personification, Animals, Birds, Dances, Fruits, Instruments, Trees). Another problem is that he targets not only Pakistan but other countries as well with his hoaxes. These will be a bit easier to stomp out if we can at least stop his hoaxes on the core articles (provinces/symbol list ones). Gotitbro (talk) 05:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! So far, I've generally reverted on sight any edits that add state or province symbols if they come from an IP geolocating to the Greater Manchester area. But I don't keep an eye on everything, and obviously I haven't checked all the pre-existing content in the articles that I watch. That addition to Gilgit-Baltistan was made five years ago [3]! Zeshan Mahmood is especially difficult to track as he hits a number of countries (including India), and a range of articles: in addition to states and provinces, there's stuff like Fauna of Pakistan, articles about individual species, foods, dances, etc. (there are hundreds of them), he sometimes even requests redirects at WP:AFC/R. Pinging Kautilya3, Fylindfotberserk and Arjayay, who I assume watch a lot of the articles concerned – you're all probably already aware of that, but just in case. – Uanfala (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vow! I wasn't aware of any of this. I will keep an eye out for provincial symbols. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pages using WikiProject Pakistan with unknown parameters

I'm gonna move onto a different category to clean, but you may want to take a look through Category:Pages using WikiProject Pakistan with unknown parameters to see if there's any other parameters you want to get added to the template before I return. The easiest approach may be to use the navigation at the top to jump to each letter and find them that way. JPG-GR (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I imagine it must be annoying on your side. I don't think the recent addition to Template:WikiProject Pakistan of unknown parameter checking has taken into account the parameters actually in use for the template. There appears to have been some detailed sub-classification with parameters like |Literature= or |Lahore=. I see that Mar4d has done a lot of tagging here – Mar4d, are these parameters still likely to be used, or should we let people remove them? I've tweaked the template to allow parameters for Punjab, KP and Kashmir, as these appear useful, but how many of the others are needed? – Uanfala (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uanfala Thanks for pinging me. Some of these projects were deleted for reasons I can't fathom, even while other provincial projects still have their parameters intact (e.g. Sindh, Balochistan) for many, many years. Given the sheer number of articles tagged under the Punjab/Khyber/Kashmir projects, I'd rather not have these tags removed, given the possibility that these projects may likely be revived and better organised in the near future (and because the precedent exists for other provinces), and also because it won't be the most constructive use of time. Therefore, my opinion would be to keep all of the following parameters on Template:WikiProject Pakistan: Punjab, Khyber, Sindh, Balochistan, Kashmir and Gilgit. I see you've made adjustments in that regard. Thanks! Mar4d (talk) 04:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC) If it were up to me, I'd also merge and redirect Template:WikiProject Karachi and Wikipedia:WikiProject Sindh into the main template but I don't have much knowledge of how that would work. [reply]

While we're at this, is it also possible to add importance ratings for each of the above subprojects into the Pakistan WikiProject template? Mar4d (talk) 04:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added the |importance= parameters to the list of accepted parameters [4]. Your point was for the importance ratings to be displayed, right? I'll have to look how that's done, but if you have any specific edits in mind, let me know. – Uanfala (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's all actually, just the sub-projects and a way to display their importance ratings. Then the template should be fit to use. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Arbol for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arbol is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arbol until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Diwali!

Happy Diwali!!!

Sky full of fireworks,
Mouth full of sweets,
Home full of lamps,
And festival full of sweet memories...

Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali.
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Ah, it's today. Happy Diwali! – Uanfala (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Siding

The discussion at Talk:Siding (construction) has died off. I thought it was clear that we should not send 80% of the readers unnecessarily through the dab but, some disagree. So should I open another RM at this point? Newest numbers are still 75/25.MB 23:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a new RM sounds like the only way forward. I don't think I will be able to go as far as supporting the move myself – I personally use a higher threshold for primary topics than most other people, but I certainly won't oppose it either: there's a strong case here, and a move back to the primary title will undoubtedly be of benefit to many readers. I expect most participants will support it. – Uanfala (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Long comment on Tropical sage

Thanks for the note about the comment; I will try to remember that when editing disambiguation pages and probably should have noticed that sooner. I just read the discussion on {{long comment}} and while disambiguation pages may not appear Special:ShortPages, the final comment confirms that set index articless are still included; you can see that Tropical sage is currently on the list. —Ost (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I hadn't noticed the page was a set index article, and I wasn't aware these were not excluded from the short pages report either. Thanks for finding that out! – Uanfala (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for saving the articles from drowning

I just wanted to say "Thank you!" again for rescuing Belokhvostik and Mikhailovsky Square articles. Your support is very much appreciated! Sincerely, Partizan Kuzya (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but I didn't do anything, apart from standing at the side and whining. – Uanfala (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atropatene = azerbaijan

Hello, Atropatene is the ancient name of the region of Azerbaijan. This is a historical fact. please dont delete my edits. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammad785 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atropatene is indeed the ancient name of Iranian Azerbaijan, not Azerbaijan. Old Azeri is not the ancient langauge of Azerbaijanis (as for the other part of your disruptive edits, which you do not address). Stating that ancient Azerbaijanis (WP:OR) spoke Old Azeri is pure anachronistic irredentism.[5] One more revert spree and I will report your personally to ANI. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad785, this is about your addition of entries for Old Azeri, Atropatene and Ottoman-Safavid War (1603-1618) to the page Azerbaijan (disambiguation). That page is a disambiguation page, its only purpose is to provide navigation to the various articles whose topics are known as "Azerbaijan". See the line at the top of the page? It says Azerbaijan or Azərbaycan may also refer to: Can the word "Azerbaijan" ever refer to the Old Azeri language, or that 17th-century battle? I'd be really surprised if it did. Feel free to explain if you believe the opposite is true, but please don't go on like that. You've been reverted there several times by several people, and if you continue edit warring, the only thing you're likely to achieve is getting yourself blocked. – Uanfala (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with you, and I may have been wrong about the ancient Azeri and the Safavid-Ottoman war, and that Albania is now in Europe and no longer belongs to the Caucasus, but the real name of Azerbaijan is Aran, and this page is about Azerbaijan. Not about the country of Aran (the fake Republic of Azerbaijan). Before becoming an independent country, Aran was part of Iran along with Azerbaijan, Russia, and Aturpatgan is not only related to Iranian Azerbaijan, it is related to the whole region of Azerbaijan.