User talk:Maria0333

Clue Bot commons

Hi Maria0333, I saw your message at ClueBot Commons and had a look at your edits to Rawalpindi. I can see you are breaking up paragraphs and consolidating info, but the edit that ClueBot NG reverted removed some references, which may have been what triggered the bot, and also had a line starting with a space, which renders as typescript in a grey box and with no line-wrapping, and you had one picture of a market appearing twice (you appear to have wanted to reposition it but to have forgotten to remove the original line). Please use the preview button so you can see and fix the format problems before saving the edit. I suggest not removing references; fit the info and the ref into your new version. And as someone else pointed out in an edit summary after you resumed working on the article, you have been breaking templates; avoid changing material that appears between {{ and }}, especially removing one of those two or making a paragraph break. Again, the preview button would have shown you the resulting red text indicating a problem. The other editor also asked you to leave edit summaries; this helps others to see what you are trying to do so they can help. I hope this helps explain why you've been reverted and that you will now be able to improve the article. Thanks for your effort to do so! Yngvadottir (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

BLOG OF FRIENDS BY KYRSTEN

Bold text For hailey..... sup? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kikiiscool1234 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

=

Pervaizish (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gujar Khan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punjabi (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) 11:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Siraiki

Hi Maria,

Re: Siraiki language, the dialects are from Masica (1991). Is the one you changed the same as Jhangvi dialect, do you think? It would be nice to get a citation for that. — kwami (talk) 06:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear, Saraiki is a language, it is not a dialect. Riasti dialect, Shah puri dialect,Multani dialect, Multani language, Thalochi dialect, Thalochi ,Derawali dialect articles. I suggest merging these articles , as the all these are same. And also be Redirected to Saraiki language. Also Jhangvi dialect is dialect of Saraiki. Kindly See these External Links http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=skr http://globalrecordings.net/en/language/16338

• Department of Saraiki, Islamia University, Bahawalpur was established in 1989 and Department of Saraiki, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan was established in 2006. Saraiki is taught as subject in schools and colleges at higher secondary, intermediate and degree level.

Allama Iqbal open university Islamabad, and Al-Khair university Bhimbir have their Pakistani Linguistics Departments. They are offering M.Phil. and Ph.D in Saraiki. Five T V channels and Ten Radio Stations are Serving Saraiki language — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.110.14 (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts but language term is distinguished from dialect term. Two dialects are same language if they are mutually intangible and have high percentage of lexical similarities. Majhi (Standard Punjabi dialect) and Saraiki dialect are mutually intangible and have high percentage of lexical similarities. please refer to now linguistic researches on a number of links i Provided in Language Vs dialect section or classification section of the Saraiki dialect article. Similer example In india is Haryanvi which is a considered a state language on socio political basis but linguistically it is a dialect of Hindi/Urdu. Best Regards Maria0333 (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thalochi

Thanks for your great contributions to Wikipedia Language Articles. You being a true professional referring Mascica. But there is an aspect we should give due consideration is what the locals feel about their dialect because the are better Judge of how much their dialect approximates with any Language. So please check various district local web sites and give them as a reference on those articles. That will be a graet help. Please tell me your email because I will send you some important Microsoft excel data. sheets if u like. Maria0333 (talk) 07:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure.

How locals feel about their language is only relevant to sociolinguistics. I had a friend, a native speaker of English, who insisted that English was a Romance language, and that I was ridiculous for thinking it was Germanic. Just because someone speaks a language doesn't mean they know anything about its classification.

I am concerned about Jangvi, as Masica doesn't go into detail. — kwami (talk) 07:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You are talking about one individual (Your Friend) but I am talking about Million of locals. Can we ignor them. You are reverting and trying to engage me an edit war but I will not revert them now. But I expect that you will realize and will do some research on Local web sites. Linguistic books present new theory after every few years but we need to check ground realities through local resources. You are a professional so I respect you.Maria0333 (talk) 07:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Local opinion is only a source for local opinion. For a linguistic claim we need a linguistic source. That's just how an encyclopedia works. People can be extraordinarily ignorant about their language, and millions of people just means millions who can be ignorant. Similarly, we wouldn't use local opinion for the nutritional value of the food they eat, nor about the mineral composition of the soil they till: what they believe may be very different from what is demonstrable. (In the US, for a long time people thought the soil in the Midwest was poor, when it's actually quite rich.) The basics our our sourcing policy is at WP:RS.

Also, what you're calling "edit warring" is me reverting you when you say the same thing twice, or moving minor detail out of the first sentence. — kwami (talk) 07:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with basics of sourcing policy at WP:RS thats why i am asking you to please help these articles by adding local reliable sources. People could be confused about Food/ Soil contents but when a local can visit Lahore or Multan he can easily assess about the mutual intangibility of his dialect with language spoken in those cities because it is not a rocket science. Hope you will buy my point. Maria0333 (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Maria, I hope you understand that "local" and "reliable source" are actually contradictory for almost any linguistic topid under WP:RS guidelines. To take your example at face value, I could drive to the airport, catch a couple planes, and end up in Scotland tomorrow, where I can find individuals who are completely incomprehensible to me, even though they are speaking the English language. In that case, my subjective assessment that the Scotsman is speaking another language is completely erroneous, we just speak such vastly divergent dialects that we can't understand each other, even though there are many dialects with which both of us would be able to communicate with absolutely no reduced comprehension. Locals are, in fact, incredibly stupid about their language, largely because a person's experience of their language is so prejudiced towards their local dialect. An example of the last would be for me, as a speaker of Pacific Northwest English, I would say that /t/ is not allowed in the coda, even though this is demonstrably false in almost every other English dialect. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 08:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually fault lies with us (linguistics) because we ignore the difference of definition of Language and definition of a dialect...Language means a totally incomprehensible for example English and Urdu. Although Urdu is actually a mix of many languages including English and lexical similarity is nearly 25% but it is of no use because there is no mutual intelligibility that why URDU is a different language from English. But when Geirision or Masica try to classify Chateesgarhi as a separate language then local people like us use to laugh because these are 80% comprehensible to us (Urdu/Hindi Speakers) and in fact a dialect with around 65% lexical similarity. Similarly Northern most Punjabi dialect Dogri is mutually intangible and comprehensible with southern most Derawali dialect of Punjabi. But out of blue moon in 1920 here comes Sir Geirison in India Pakistan and conduct a survey and divide Hindi/Urdu in to ten languages and Punjabi in to 2 languages one Eastern Punjabi other western Punjabi for which he just for seek of his self connivance uses the Punjabi word 'LAHNDA' which means Western. At the sudden LAHNDA emerges as a Language ignoring the fact that people of eastern and western dialects have no problem of calling them selves Punjabi and can easily communicate with each other. They failed to convince others what they are doing out of 200 words comparisons that's why every other person is not accepting these fake classifications. Examples Dhani, Pothohari, Shahpuri, Jhangvi, Jaangli, Chenavari, Thalochi People never accept these research and claim themselves as punjabi. Few exceptions are Southern dialects Multani Dera wali and Riasti (Bahawalpuri) who in 1964 after reading these researches under an political agenda (The wish to DEGRADE lahore The Capital Of Punjab against MULTAN because its older city then Lahore). So agenda was a separate identity creation with the name of Saraiki (Suddenly emerged in 1964) and to create a separate province (which could not be made till date). So Saraiki is claimed as a separate language not on the basis of Mutual intangibility but a matter of SOCIO POLITICO GAME. Similarly Hindko is extremly close to Punjabi of Lahore. But again the socio political game (Hindko is spoken in a Punjab's rival province KPK where Pashto speakers are in majority who call hindko as Punjabi and ask them to leave KPK, that's why Hindko people Claim and say NO NO we are not Punjabi we speak a separate language and they put forward Geirison research forward. So Hinko and Saraiki people today agree with these research but all other Punjabi Urdu/Hindi dialect people do not accept fake classifications. I call it fake because in Gerison research he says LAHNDA as separate language on the basis of 3 grounds. Number 1. Phonology. Punjabi 'B' 'D' with breath going out LAHNDA 'B' and 'D' breath going in. 'Bh', 'Gh' (Lahnda) = 'P', 'K' (Punjabi). QUESTION ARISES ARE THESE MAJOR DIFFERENCES? Number 2. Future and Past Tense. In Punjabi all the structure of Future is same as LAHNDA, only difference is the 'GA' in the end is replaced by 'S' in the middle. example KHA AN GAA= KHA S AN. In the past tense 'S' in the start is replaced by 'H' in the end example Mea Saan= Mea Haan. QUESTION AGAIN ARISES ARE THESE MAJOR DIFFRENCES? Number three: 5% Verbs/vocabulary minor borrowings from neighboring languages (Punjabi from Urdu and Lahanda from Sindhi) which is a natural practice by every language different dialects i.e. . Examples To Go= Vnj in sindhi and lahnda= Ja in Urdu and Punjabi. So we (Linguists) fail because we ignore the basic concepts of what is a language and what is a dialect. we are more calculators rather then real world ground reality analyzers. Thats why Govt of india recently rejected gierison work as not reliable one and has announced a fresh Language Research. U can search it on internet for ready reference. HOPE 2 CONVINCE YOU BECAUSE I HAVE SOUND GROUNDS FOR ALL THIS Maria0333 (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The lang/dialect question is a problem all over the world, not just in India. When that research is out, we can cite it as well.

BTW, Ethnologue divides up Indian dialects into an ever larger number of languages. Where I have linguistic sources that merge them, I've been doing that, which is why we sometimes get a dozen ISO codes for a single language. On the other hand, in many cases we have a single ISO code for a dozen languages which people insist are the same, despite not being able to understand one another. It' very difficult to apply the same criterion to all the languages of the world, because no one source evaluates them all.

Masica notes that no-one has ever enumerated Indian languages on the basis on mutual intelligibility. People have tried, but there are three problems: There are few dividing lines in a dialect continuum like Indic (but I doubt most people would accept that Sindhi and Bengali are the same language); there is a lot of unidirectional intelligibility; and there are a lot of cases where people insist they can understand each other, but that's only because of passive bilingualism. These problems have defeated past attempts at determining languages based on true mutual intelligibility. — kwami (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You are very right. I am a young professor in NUML (National University of Modern Languages). I dont say any one wrong or correct but in my humble opinion whenever a situation like Indo Pak arises we should follow a two step approach. Step 1. Determine lexical similarity of Morphological, and syntactical similar dialects on the basis of larger vocabulary (800-1000 Words ) comparison and if it is above 65% then Step 2. Conduct a survey of nearly 300-500 less mobile rural people with a definite question CAN YOU COMMUNICATE WITH LAHORIS (FOR EXAMPLE) IN YOUR OWN LANGUAGE? If Survey result is more then 50 % as YES then those dialects are not separate languages. And you trust me Hindko and Punjabi are nearly 95% same because when i see a hindko drama on TV I try to locate the differences and I end up with nearly nothing. People of Hindko area watch APNA a punjabi channel as their first choice over other channels. For Saraiki its also nearly 90% to Punjabi. I am telling u because I am a local and In my opinion being a linguist and local I am the best person to Judge these things which a foreign Linguist or A local Lay man can not Judge. Potowari-Pahari is how ever is the most divergent Punjabi dialect as compare to two above because it involves Dardic (Kashmiri Vocabulary injections but still it is easily mutually intangible with Majhi. Interestingly foreign Linguistics classify URDU and HINDI as different languages on the basis that there writing system is different and Hindi has SANSKRIT VOCABULARY and URDU has PERSIAN and ARABIC vocabulary. But THEY ignore the same rule for BENGALI (INDIA vs BANGLA DESH) and Punjabi (INDIA vs PAKISTAN). For Dhani Shahpuri,Jandali,Riasti Jaangli, Jhangvi, Thalochi very very important aspect which is being ignored. Gerison came before IRRIGATION SYSTEM was set so the area was known as Jungle baar or Thal/Choolistan desert with sparse population but in 1930's land was converted to cultivated area by Majhi settlers so demography changed so the dialects got to a closer and adjusted to a hybrid form. 1947 Post partition of indo Pak. Hindu and Sikh locals (Jhangvi/Jaangli/Thalochi...) shifted to India and they were replaced by Muslim Standard Punjabi settlers so demography again changed and further hybridization took place. Thats why these dialect people are now very close to Majhi and consider them self as Punjabi. Even today the land in Thal and Choolistan deserts are being allotted to Majhi farmers. So slowly the things are even further closing down. Another fact is that it is a modern era of mass transportation so as the mobility between LAHORE the capital and Locals is increasing the language through out Pakistani Punjab is in a process of uniformity. Last but not the least Punjabi is derived from Name Punjab. The name "Punjab" means "five waters" in Persian (punjab) and refers to Indus River and its tributaries. So Had Only Majhi been the Punjabi then shouldnt it be called DOabi because Majhi is restricted to 2 rivers. Today the ground reality is that Punjabi has two Major groups; 1. Eastern Punjabi dialects (Malwi, Powadi , Doabi etc) spoken in India with different culture, religion, writing system and Sansikrat and Hindi vocablary. 2. Western HYBRIDIZED Punjabi which comprise of modern Majhi (which has injections of old LAHNDA dialects) and Modern Hybrid Lahnda dialects (Potowari, Dhani, Shahpuri, Multani, Riasti, Derawali, Jhangvi, Jaangli etc) spoken in old Lahnda areas. All these dialects are spoken in Pakistani Punjab area and have common culture, religion, writing system and Persian and Arabic vocabulary. Today all Pakistani Punjab is as close as never in terms of mutual understandably. A very fresh survey will show this fact i am dead sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria0333 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that the official language of India is Urdu. They just don't like calling it that. And we do have a single article on Hindustani language. The problem with accepting the opinions of local editors, however, is that tomorrow we may get someone who insists just the opposite. It would be great if you could locate some support for this, and not just for Punjabi lects, but for Bhili, Sindhi, Gujarati, Hindi, Bihari, Oriya, Bangla-Assamese, etc. I'd have no objection to merging their dialects into the main articles, but I'd want to be sure we don't just end up splitting them up again in a year.

You speak of mutual intelligibility of Siraiki and Majhi, but wouldn't the same be true of Siraiki and Sindhi? Of Sindhi and Gujarati? There are intermediate dialects between all the major languages, so yes, you can take a Panjabi-centric view, but if you took a Sindhi-centered view you'd end up with different "languages", with no good way to decide between the two results. — kwami (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing such useful thoughts. Actually I can speak almost all Pakistani Major Languages i,e, Urdu, Punjabi (All dialects including So called languages Hindko Saraiki and Pothohari), Sindhi, Pashto (North and south dialects), Brahvi (A Dravidian language spoken in Baluchistan), Little bit Balochi and Persion. I am good in English and in child hood i have hobby of learning languages so i learnt little bit Arabic, French, German and few others . I have a collection of more then 50 different language's learning books in my library. Because I know Sindhi very well so let me tell u that Saraiki is actually the word of sindhi which means Head side dialect. Throughout history the northern 10 District of Sindh Province were called Saraiki. which was in fact Sindhi Saraiki. THe punjab's saraiki emerged in 1964. Punjab's Saraiki is very different from Sindhi. Although it have some vocabulary sharing with sindhi. If you see the map u will be clear why i am saying this because First major Sindhi settlement in North is Ghotki on east side of indus river and Last major settlement of Riasti Saraiki/punjabi had been Rahim yaar khan (Before new settlement of Majhi Punjabi people in saqidabad near Sindh border). The distance between Ghotki and Rahim yar khan is 120 KM with very less population because of Desert around. So historically the space between Riasti and Sindhi Saraiki never allowed a common transitional dialect. But on west side of River Indus Dera wali of Rajan pur is bit more closer to sindhi saraiki. Dera wali is spoken in three districts (Rajan pur,D G Khan and Muzzafargarh) NOTE this division is the only division where Majhi settlers (15%) are least in population and ethnically Balouch tribes are living. So Derawali is not hybridized much. Thalochi and Riasti are so much hybridized with Majhi due to new settlements and cultivation of Thal and Choolistan that Riasti and Thalochi people has rejected to be part of Proposed new Saraiki Province. Multani the standard dialect of Saraiki is in fact closest by distance and in terms of closeness to majhi and Multan division has in fact Majhi majority as per 1998 Census. Ratio between Punjabi,Saraiki and Haryanvi in Multan division is 51:36:13 Respectively. So very obviously hybridization taking effect on multani. You are right Hindustani is Urdu but typical Indian ego. U marked Jhangvi/Jaangli/Chenavari/Rachnavi as unclassified dialect but actually it is the source of punjabi heritage for example it is credited with the creation of the famous epic Punjabi romance stories of Heer Ranjha and Mirza Sahiba. As i told u about the continuous hybridization These dialects in 2013 are very much close to Majhi as compare to 1920's and these are going to get more closer because of the fact that most of people of these dialect work in factories of Lahore and Faisalabad. Inter provincial transfers has also changed the demography that's why Sahiwal Okara and Pak Pattan district people opted out of Multan Division in to a new Division. when ever saraiki nationalist try to claim the areas above multan as saraikistan they are out rightly rejected by Khanewal Vehari Jhang Toba Tek singh Chaniot Sahiwal Okara Pakpattan Sargodha Khaushab Chakwal and Mianwali's people. Their language was niether part of Southren Lahnda (Saraiki) but the standard Lahnda and today's Hybridized forms of Standard Lahnda (Jhangvi/Jaangli/Chenavari/Rachnavi/Shahpuri) are even more divergent from so called Saraiki Language. You know when ever Majhi vocabulary is different from Lahnda dialects. it is basically due to urdu borrowings. Today Urdu is effecting all Pakistani local Languages so that process is also converting Lahnda dialects vocabulary in to Urdu so ultimately more closer to Majhi. IN MY OPINION clear cut indo aryan languages are Bangali, Punjabi, Sindhi, Gujrati, Marhati,Hindi/Urdu, Oriya, Nepali, Kashmiri and Assamees. Other minors and dialects claimed as languages are neither recognized officially in india nor in Pakistan.Maria0333 (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

As a linguist, I could care less what's official. That's simply political fashion. Officially, Urdu and Manak Hindi are different languages. What I'd be interested in is which of these minor unofficial varieties are unintelligible to others. You could have a village of 100 people who insist their variety is a mere dialect of something else, but if you're a speaker of that something and move to that village and after a couple weeks of osmosis still can't understand it, then it's a different language no matter what people say. There's also the matter of history: two languages may have separated long ago, but due to mutual influence are now seen as being quite similar. Yet to the historical linguist their differences may be substantial. Anyway, it would be nice to get some better research on this. Ethnologue tends to go overboard, but relying on official status is also inadequate. — kwami (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I actually said that in my opinion after comparing and listening to various indo aryan dialects i can easily judge that Actual Language Level could be given to above mentioned list.Dravidian and others not included by me because i am not in a position to compare and understand them. Bhilli however could also be in this list but not bahari. As far as Punjabi and relevant dialect articles are concerned I am very clear about it and it should be grouped as I am making edits on relevant pages. Please Check them and we can discuss and readjust them.Maria0333 (talk) 03:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that, since you appear to be relying on objective criteria. However, there's a potential problem: We have lots of language activists at the Indo-Pakistani articles, so how do we defend your changes when they start edit warring with you, insisting that Siraiki (or whatever) is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT LANGUAGE ITS NOT RELATED TO PANJABI AT ALL STOP CULTURAL GENOCIDE OF THE SIRAIKI PEOPLE!!!!!!!!! Okay, maybe a milder version of that that isn't so obviously whacko. How do we justify treating Siraiki as a dialect of Panjabi, to editors or admins who know nothing of the topic, when people insist that it's a separate language, and use references to Ethnologue or Masica to support their argument? — kwami (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for treating me objective. I actually understand the Nationalist and Socio political editors so i will do it in a way in which It will present two way picture for example Saraiki is a language as per this this and this however it is also considered as Punjabi dialect as per this this and this. So that all the contrasting views could be covered effectively. Please give me 24 hours so that i can work out appropriate and objective edits. Then you review them because your professional guidance is very important for me. I believe in true professionalism which I could only achieve with a stronger coordination with professionals like you. Maria0333 (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't know the languages, and I don't know the lit, so I'll trust your judgement. I've been trying to get at least schematic coverage of all the world's languages on WP, but had kept away from Indic because there were such obvious problems. Finally this past week I came back; Lahnda was the last real mess within Indic to clean up since I tackled Bhili a couple months ago. (Now, AFAICT, the only family that still needs an overhaul is Austronesian.) But I'm operating largely out of ignorance (I don't know much about Indo-European), so your knowledge is invaluable. I'll try to leave the articles alone unless you need my input on something. — kwami (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for trusting my local knowledge. Unfortunately I was suffering with fever for one and half day so I was not able to make valuable editing to the related articles, but i have tried a bit. Hope to make more useful inputs. Your efforts for world languages are incredible and your critical reviews are very important and valuable for me. BEST REGARDS Maria0333 (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Please move the article, as you did to Lahnda (Western Punjabi). Don't cut & paste: that loses the article history. — kwami (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Bahawalpur (princely state) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Majhi and Bagri

Bahawalnagar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Punjabi

Lodhran (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Majhi

Lodhran District (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Majhi

Multan District (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Majhi

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Hindko language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sindhi

Punjabi language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Fatehabad

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Punjabi language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Multani (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) 10:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Mandi Bahauddin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Punjabi

Wah Cantonment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Punjabi

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Saraiki literature, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saraiki (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) 13:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Some thoughts to ponder

I believe in Good Faith edits. I want to follow WP rules but The way things are going I am afraid i will have no option but to leave Wikipedia because I am feeling dejected, how the people doubt my credibility and hurt my dignity Maria0333 (talk) 06:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Maria, you wrote above "I am feeling dejected, how the people doubt my credibility and hurt my dignity."

It may come as a shock to you, but you have no credibility on Wikipedia. Zero. None. Nor do I, or anyone else. My own expertise isn't relevant, even if I'm editing in my area of expertise.

Simply asserting you're an expert in a field doesn't make it so. Wikipedia has had cases where people claimed expertise and then were exposed as false (an example that comes to mind is a college student posing as a PhD in history). What people say about themselves doesn't matter. Their contributions speak for themselves. So don't be surprised when assertions you make about your own expertise are doubted or ignored.

You gain credibility on Wikipedia not by asserting your credibility, but by demonstrating it through constructive editing, civil discourse free of personal attacks, and compliance with Wikipedia's established policies and guidelines.

So, how have you fared? Let's look at those three points I made in the preceding sentence:

• Constructive editing: You have been edit warring. Read Wikipedia:Edit warring. You seem to be drifting into WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior territory also.
• Civility: You have not been civil, instead you come across as arrogant, choosing to attack others in your unblock request, and even suggesting that those who disagree with you are sexist — those are personal attacks. See Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks.
• Policies and guidelines: You have not been compliant with policies and guidelines, specifically WP:SYNTHESIS as has been pointed out to you; instead you fall back on your self-asserted expertise and order others to stay away, as if that would convince anyone. This behavior is unconvincing and will never achieve your aims.

While expertise helps, expertise is not a requirement to be constructive and productive here. As Wikipedia's founder, Jimmy Wales, has stated: "[I am] perhaps anti-credentialist. To me the key thing is getting it right. And if a person's really smart and they're doing fantastic work, I don't care if they're a high school kid or a Harvard professor...." Expertise is not required because "getting it right" means (among other things) referring to reliable sources without synthesizing conclusions from them.

I urge you to read the policies and guidelines I linked, and I hope to see your continued contributions. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. but one thing i want to assure you that I have not synthesized any thing in both of my maps and I have done good faith work very professionally and with good spirit. I would like to follow the rules with my utmost effort in the future. Thanks for giving me courage to again feel as a use full contributor to WP Maria0333 (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I know you created those maps in good faith according to the best of your abilities.

You also know that, in creating them, you drew information from a variety of sources, using your own personal interpretation and expertise, to draw conclusions about where the boundaries lie on your maps.

The work you did, that is the definition of original research, which includes synthesis.

Original research is prohibited on Wikipedia, although more latitude is given for images to allow for original work. The problem here is that your maps represent data synthesized from multiple sources, and that crosses over the line into prohibited territory.

If an expert had performed this research and had it published in a peer-reviewed journal, then it could be referenced and the maps could be reproduced. If there's a consensus of expert opinion about the locations of these boundaries that would be unambiguously interpreted the same way, by anyone outside your area of expertise, then drawing a map based on that consensus would be fine. But that isn't what occurred.

The controversy over these maps isn't about how factual they are, or that they were made in good faith. I am sure your maps represent well-intentioned, hard work on your part. Rather, the controversy arises due to conflict with established Wikipedia policies. They may well be accurate, but we can't know that without reliable and verifiable sources that corroborate the synthesis you've performed. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Had it been controversial then it would had been criticized by some Linguist or local dialect speaker but it is being made controversial by an non local not linguist user Sitush. In courts lawyers misuse rules and laws to put their client case forward. I am afraid that the principle of True and fair view and Accurate professional information will also be beaten again here by same course of misusing the rules. In fact all WP articles are a synthesized reflection of various sources first hand information. I again reiterate the need for a professional discussion on commons to improve the map if required. Other wise I dont agree with the use less nik nok involving rules used for deleting valid and useful contribution. I am strong on my content on map thats why I have full confidence that I can easily defend that if some professional linguist plugs in to commons. Amatulic Thanks for guidance and Full respect for you as an WP editor by me. Honesty should prevail over rules and rules should be used to accommodate good faith contributions. Please also refer to refrences I have mentioned on commons to re check my map accuracy. BEST REGARDS Maria0333 (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Maria0333, you need to understand that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. It only describes work that has been published elsewhere. If you (as an expert) had published this map in a peer-reviewed linguistics journal as part of a paper documenting the basis for the map, then Wikipedia could cite your paper and articles could show a copyright-free version of your map. However, it appears that you have chosen to publish your work on Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia, which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. You can argue all you want about the professional quality of your work, but until it has been published by a reliable source, Wikipedia can't use it. --Orlady (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Maria, I do not doubt the validity, factualness, or usefulness of your contributions. However, you still don't understand the controversy. There's a simple test.

Ask yourself: Could these maps have been produced by a lay-person examining the available sources?

If the answer is "yes" then there is no problem. That means such maps must either be available in reliable sources already, or the data needed to reproduce the maps are present in reliable sources and can be unambiguously interpreted.

If the answer is "no", then we can't use the maps on the English Wikipedia, because they represent original research requiring specific expertise, and the English Wikipedia does not publish such work if it hasn't already been published elsewhere. The maps are likely fine on Commons (I don't see why they would be deleted), or on Wikipedias in other languages, because all those sites have their own rules. But here, we abide by the rules on the English Wikipedia.

The prohibition against publishing original thought is one of the reasons that Wikipedia is considered a reliable source of information, and why it's often the first place people refer to when seeking information about any topic.

You have performed research that is probably worthy of publication somewhere. If you do publish that research in a reliable source, then we could use them on Wikipedia. But Wikipedia can't be the first publisher. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Seriously i am very confused that how I describe all of you that I have not created a New mobile technology or new formula or new painting. Because unfortunately there is no published map on the subject. I have just given a shape of all dialects agreed by all known linguists in to a map. Only map already available (File:Dialects Of Punjabi.jpg) on WP which was uploaded by Khalid Mehmood WP user, which was based on 1900,s position so I just made it as per modern linguist work specially of CARDONA. I am surprised that no one objected on Khalid Mehmood map uploaded in 2010 for 3 years on the same grounds of Self publishing and just for sake of an unknown ego they are making my Map controversial with out any professional discussion on its accuracy. That is the best case of discrimination. Unfortunately every one is just playing with words and with out any professional objectivity. Every thing in the world revolves around objectivity and it over rides Rules, every time they both compete the end result is modification of rules to accommodate the logic Maria0333 (talk) 06:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You are still confused? As I suggested before, ask yourself: Could these maps have been produced by a lay-person examining the available sources?

That's really the crux of the issue.

Please don't engage in misdirection with accusations of discrimination or egos. You are not helping yourself by doing so.

On Wikipedia, verifiability matters more than truth. Anyone working in academic disciplines should be able to understand and accept that. ~Amatulić (talk) 08:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion If a lay person read the latest research of 2007 in the Publication named 'The Indo-Aryan Languages' by George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain he can easily verify the map. additionally any local editor can also very easily verify the dialects and the districts which cover them. My confidence level is 200% on the credential thats why I always well come constructive criticism on my map. You also refer to Wiki media common map page to see how the up loader of first map on punjabi dialects as his own work Mr. Khalid Mehmood has requested deletion with out a reason as to where it is wrong although I have explained him that his uploaded image was as per Sir Garrison 1919 positions and my work is as per latest linguistic research post Irrigation colonization, Indo pak partition and Recent cultivation of Thal and Choolistan deserts. Maria0333 (talk) 09:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

Your recent edits suggest a nationalist focus in this topic area and a willingness to insert your personal views into articles, for example at Baloch Students Organization. Please be aware that any administrator may sanction you under WP:AC/DS if your edits appear to violate this Arbitration Committee decision. If you edit in such a way that nobody can discern from your article edits which side you favor, you should be on safe ground. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

While if this is with reference to my last edit in BSO article then if you read the article it groups BSO AZAD as liberator and two other BSO groups as Pakistani constitution acceptor. That is why I deleted the liberation being prime agenda of Whole BSO. If an article is separately written about BSO Azad then liberation as prime objective could be added. I mention all this in edit summary. Hope it will clear the situation. Maria0333 (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Another request!

Listen Maria, can you please provide here 1 (only one) reliable (not blog, opinion piece etc) source where all the data from which this map is created is present. I am from the region and can understand these languages and the context. Maybe I will be able to read the source better than those from the 'rival' or 'foreign' country.

You have to understand no one is ganging up on you because of your gender or questioning your credibility. Many here are experienced editors who are trying to explain you the policies and trying to resolve this. So relax, calm down, and read the entire conversation again.

And though you can remove content from your talkpage at your will, may I suggest not to do this unless the whole case is closed so that there is a flow and clear understanding on whats going on. Cheers Samar ^Talk 07:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You may go to image Map on Dialects Of Punjabi Language.jpg on wiki media commons where I have been discussing with users who appears to me not from A linguist back round. You vote there. Best source of my map is latest research in 2007 in Publication named 'The Indo-Aryan Languages' by George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain. Maria0333 (talk) 09:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The book you mention is available for "preview" on Google Books in the US. It has a chapter on this language, by Christopher Shackle. On page 639 there is a map of the dialects that has some broad similarities to your map, but has far less detail and has noteworthy discrepancies with your map (in particular, your map shows more dialects than Shackle's map and it does not include some of the principal dialects that he describes). (Note: The Shackle map could be in color in the print edition, but color does not show in the preview.) --Orlady (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot preview the book. Maria you have ebook or scanned copy of the page? Samar ^Talk 16:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Orlady and samar You may go to image Map on Dialects Of Punjabi Language.jpg on wiki media commons where I have been discussing with users who appears to me not from A linguist back round. You vote there. Best source of my map is latest research in 2007 in Publication named 'The Indo-Aryan Languages' by George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain.Maria0333 (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The Commons discussion was closed because "It is not the purpose of Commons to make the decision of the wikipedias whether an uploaded file is accurate." Commons made no judgement on the validity of the map. As I stated above, the source you provided above does not appear to support the information in the map. Please do not remove the tags that identify the map as possible original research. --Orlady (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please stop edit warring, as you are doing in this edit. You are well aware that several people are discussing the suitability of this map for use in English Wikipedia articles and you are aware that there was a rationale for its removal placed on the article talk pages. You need to discuss. - Sitush (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. If others object to your maps, the burden is on you to try to form a consensus on the talk page. See WP:BURDEN. You will not achieve your objective by continually inserting your maps over the objections of others. My job as an administrator is to prevent disruption of the Wikipedia project and edit-warring is disruptive. I do not want to have to block you again.

I suggest you use the talk pages to demonstrate that a layperson's interpretation of sources would be the same as yours, and also explain, in the context of Wikipedia policy and not your opinion, why your map is preferable to maps that have already been published in verifiable and reliable sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Map was deleted on two reasons. 1... Commons deletion discussion but now Deletion request by Sitush has been rejected on Wikimedia Commons. 2... Sitush has a self perception that map is synthesis, which is actually not because it is based on latest research of 2007 in the Publication named 'The Indo-Aryan Languages' by George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain. So I am re inserting it. Unless Sitush prove it again as a synthesis and refer me the areas of map being synthesized also mentioning the different publications along with page numbers where from in his kind opinion I have synthesized the map. Sitush should not message me again here but move to relevant articles talk pages and develop WP consensus for deletion if he proved it synthesis. Rules are rules for every one whether a established editor or a non established editor. In fact established editor should first set the example for non established editors and immediate blockages cant help because establish editors must be have patience enough to make people under stand the rules by first complying those rules. Thanks for your great guidance Amatulic and Best regards Maria0333 (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Consolidate discussion of the map

So that a consolidated content discussion related to the Punjabi dialects map can occur in one place on English Wikipedia (instead of many different places), I have created the discussion page File talk:Map on Dialects Of Punjabi Language.jpg. Please continue discussion there. --Orlady (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I work professionally article by article so I will never respond on this common page. It is not the budget of USA for next financial year that we make it a time pass exercise specially by few of editors who dont have any linguist back round. Maria0333 (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. Wikipedia is created by collaboration and cooperation of many contributors. Decisions on content (what to include, what not to include, etc.) are reached by consensus, not by one person saying "I'm the subject matter expert here so my ideas are superior to yours". (See WP:Consensus.) It works best when content discussions are conducted on content talk pages (where interested people can find them now and in the future), not user talk pages such as this one. Also, it works best when a topic discussion occurs in one place, rather than being spread across dozens of different talk pages. If you want the community to pay attention to your arguments in favor of the map you created, please join us in discussion. It will only make other Wikipedians angry with you if you insist that we repeat the same conversation on every page where you have inserted your map. --Orlady (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You are apparently not a local nor a linguist. That is why you cant understand the importance of individual Article's Talk page involved in the current scenario. For example there is a article on District Attock speaking a number of dialects Chachi , Jandali Ghebi and Majhi. Now only local could understand map whenever he visit the article and could use Talk page to discuss his own in put on the areas of districts where he dis agrees with map. So map is relevant for various districts and area's articles. It appears to me that most of editors who are trying to involve me to discussion on Dialects of Punjabi have no knowledge of language or its dialects instead they appear to me a Rote learner of WP rules. Some times lay man in a profession like linguistics could waste a lot of time of a linguist like me. I cant discuss with those who do not have any knowledge on the subject matter because they only cause headache just for sake of time passing on WP. Maria0333 (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Warning on edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ahmadpur East‎ and other articles. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. If you wish to defend the acceptability of the map of Punjabi dialects, please participate in discussion at File talk:Map on Dialects Of Punjabi Language.jpg. Edit-warring is not a good way to persuade others of your viewpoint. Orlady (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Rules are rules for every one whether a established editor or a non established editor. In fact established editor should first set the example for non established editors and immediate blockages cant help because establish editors must be have patience enough to make people under stand the rules by first complying those rules. You first started reverting process with out using Talk page and creating WP concensus. Please you first follow the rules in good spirit. I assure you that I always try to comply them when ever I delete some thing. I use talk page I try to devolop the concensus then I delete or tag some thing. Thanks for your great guidance and Best regards Maria0333 (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

No, you are at best following rules when they suit you and ignoring them when they do not. For example, you are also edit warring here, despite being advised within the last 24 hours that you should discuss. - Sitush (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Because you guys engaging me in to edit war, established editors must be have patience enough to make people under stand the rules by first complying those rules. you guys just revert revert revert instead of disscuss disscuss disscuss.Maria0333 (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

By making 36 reverts after you announced (above) your refusal to engage in discussion at File talk:Map on Dialects Of Punjabi Language.jpg, you have clearly identified yourself as the party who is committed to edit warring instead of discussion, Maria0333. --Orlady (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

because you started deleting or taging map on 36 pages who contained it since 6 months with out developing a WP consensus and using Talk page discussion then how you can expect me to follow all these things. If you are an administrator then dont abuse your position and use fair means and follow rules first. Additionally I cant understand why you think the term synthesis as objectionable because in reality all WP articles are in fact Synthesis of various source information. Maria0333 (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The map was added to most of these articles at the end of January. Concerns were first raised only a few weeks after that. Regardless of that, see WP:SYN for an explanation of the type of "synthesis" that is considered original research in Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Example: 30 January 2013. - Sitush (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Before January there had been a similar map up loaded by Mr. Khalid Mehmood which was being used on these and few other articles since 2010. That map was replaced because it was as per Sir garrison's work of 1920 with this one which is as per Cardona 2007. Actually all the 13 references i mentioned you in commons to study contain all the dialects descriptions because all agree on these dialects but spoken areas covered for a specific dialects are based on latest research of Cardona. Because so many areas have been divided in to various districts and tehsils with various names in last 90 years and Cardona perfectly clarifies about the boundaries of these dialects so if u compare khalid mehmood map It contains all the dialects I included in the map. but areas have been corrected as per cardona. Maria0333 (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The earlier map was first inserted at Faisalabad in mid-December. Whether it is valid or not is irrelevant to the issue concerning your map.A read of WP:OSE might assist. Regardless, your point does not address your edit warring. - Sitush (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not taking about faisalabad alone there are several articles which were using that map since 2010. Interestingly no one bothered to delete request on commons or WP just because they were posted by a boy not a girl. even today you guys just focusing my use full contributions to WP as a professional Linguist and that map is there with out any objection and thousands of WP articles are un sourced but I think you guys enjoying the party here with a girl. You all guys since 5 days have just dejected my courage to work on WP with good faith. I am thinking to leave WP very soon. STAY WITH YOUR RULES AND KEEP BLOCKING POSITIVE CONTRIBUTORS Maria0333 (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Where do you get off calling me a guy?!? Regardless, this isn't about you, it's about verifying where information comes from. --Orlady (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

A non local or non linguist should not try to do arguments in areas he lacks knowledge. Let professionals handle the area where they command. local speakers can also come to relevant districts talk pages. I will discuss with them there.Maria0333 (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Sheikhupura, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)