User talk: Kashmiri

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User:Kashmiri)
Jump to: navigation, search
Committed identity: 93e503f09fd69f42d86838f9f8ba05e2af45efbdf563c26448bd87e7979cb42b983bdb36e4121469aca4cfb936318ee9c7745a40aefb1d81504f74edc16f11fe is a SHA-512 commitment to this user's real-life identity.

Map: Durrani Empire[edit]

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]

Proposed deletion of Lilian Silburn[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

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)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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)

Notice[edit]

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)

@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)
I am not surprised since you have also failed to understand Media in Karachi. WikiBulova (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
@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)
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)

List of Sufis & List of Sufi saints[edit]

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

: 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)

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)
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)

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)

Frontiers Media removal of academic editor blog posts[edit]

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)

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)
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)

Wiki Stalking[edit]

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

@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)
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)
You have proven to be stalker and mean vindictive person. WikiBulova (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Read WP:PERSONAL so that you don't get blocked for your comments towards fellow editors. kashmiri TALK 13:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
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)

please consider the inclusion of page peer Viqar Ul aslam[edit]

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)

@Thewikisquad: Wikipedia does not include everyone who has ever been mentioned in the press. Every biography here has to fulfil certain criteria which are listed at WP:BIO - I would like to encourage you to read this. For now, I have nominated the article for deletion discussion as I believe the person is not WP:NOTABLE enough for Wikipedia. Let's wait and see what other editors will say. kashmiri TALK 18:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
@Kashmiri: The mentions are from credible source and are for notable achievement of the person, press is a very strong verifier of information. Please tag off the nomination tag and provide some more time to get the article biography requirements fulfilled and also put in more content so that you can review it! As I'm new I will need sometime to add information it will injustice to his page if Its nominated for deletion so quick as I believe that person has a large following and deserved to be on Wikipedia! Please help in making the article more reliable and fit for wiki standards! And also I would request to search the person on YouTube you'll see his TV Interviews and company profile also his key projects First International Android Radio from Kashmir - Cityfmjk that's a notable project and would give him some more credits for that also check his JK Meeqat Project that was featured on National TV : ETV Urdu reputed national news TV. That guy is notable and needs proper place on Wikipedia. Thank You Thewikisquad (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Please feel free to leave me message on my talk page, I'm on mobile as soon as I hit on a laptop I'll edit my projects here properly I hope you'll help all the way in making my experience on Wikipedia great!
And I really appreciate your responses thank you again!
@Thewikisquad: I understand, and nobody hopefully doubts that the person did what is in the press. However, the person's deeds might be considered insufficient for an encylopaedia article. Moreover, it's always much safer to propose a new article at Articles for Creation, particularly if starting on Wikipedia for the first time, or to draft it first in your own userspace and ask others for comments and improvements. Because what goes to the "live Wikipedia", or mainspace, has to fulfil quite a lot of criteria, failing which it risks being deleted.
The article is now under deletion discussion which will last 7 days before any decision is made. During this time you are welcome to improve the article - if you believe the person is sure to fulfil all the criteria for NOTABILITY. Regards, kashmiri TALK 20:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Also, please keep in mind that you should not edit the article in case you are yourself the article subject or are associated with the article subject, because this is considered conflict of interest. Regards, kashmiri TALK 20:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
@Kashmiri: I understand that and I have a list of random people and articles who I want to update and are all notable people. I have been reading the guidelines for a while now! Thewikisquad (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I hope you have taken off the tag and have reviewed the article again as I have edited the articles and made it more precise and with compliance to Wikipedia guidelines. I'll be researching more on the subject and Upload that tomorrow! Thanks Thewikisquad (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, an AfD tag once placed cannot be removed. The discussion has to go until end. Please get yourself acquainted with Wikipedia policies before editing! Regards, kashmiri TALK 22:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Re. speedy deletion of Zi Corporation[edit]

I created this article because IMHO it was an interesting piece of history relating to software patents as well as mobile software. The article has clearly lived a troubled life, so I have restored the real content here: User:Egil/Zi_Corporation As such, I think a speedy deletion should not have been done, do you agree? -- Egil (talk) 12:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Egil, not sure about the deletion process - the article did not include any claims to significance. Merely being engaged in lawsuits is not really something that automatically gives right to an encyclopaedia article, and apart from lawsuits the company did not seem to comply with WP:NCORP. So, technically, a speedy deletion was admissible. But you are always free to propose the article at Articles for Creation, or even request undelete (an admin will then look into the matter). Regards, kashmiri TALK 12:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Do not keep on tagging my redirects with "Speedy Deletion"[edit]

I have noticed that you have been tagging all the redirects I have made with "Speedy Deletion" tags. While I am willing to discuss and justify all redirects I have made, it would be very tedious to do so on my part, and it would be somehow autocratic on your part, if you just keep tagging "Speedy Deletion" without discussing or inquiry. Thank you. THE IMPERIOUS DORK (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, yes, the vast majority of your redirects do not comply with WP:REDIR and fall under criteria of speedy deletion as implausible typos. Nobody types or searches for "Pho'o", it is just implausible. Additionally, it is not allowed to do as you did when redirecting song titles an article on an Eurovision contest - as you might know, ALL articles should be notable in order to be included in Wikipedia, that including redirects. Please, please read WP:R, especially WP:R#DELETE points 2 and 8, before you embark on such a pointless redirect creation spree. kashmiri TALK 17:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

pending changes reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

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:

== Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! ==

Misdemenor (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  Cachets687  19:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I submit[edit]

If you wish to keep Islam as a secretive, difficult, and inaccessible religion for the West to study, please, spell everything in ways only a few Muslim "experts" will understand, and refuse to let typical protocol in grammar to enter the article. I submit to the will of Allah (or those who claim to speak for Allah). You have my word, this is the last time I will ever attempt such foolishness here. Scott P. (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Scottperry: Oh, why didn't you then move it to mazhab? Mazhab shows twice as many hits as madhab. Spelling discussion aside, this was also about your "moving" pages by copying and pasting. — kashmiri TALK 13:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
@Scottperry: Also, there are actually only 302 results for madhhab [1] and 360 for madhab [2], so the difference is rather negligible. — kashmiri TALK 14:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Not sure how you came up with the low results. If you wanted I could show you links for how I got results in the thousands. As you know, the lack of a simple and widely recognized transliteration system for transliterating Arabic into English quite troublesome. As I see it, this refusal of Muslims to permit simplicity and uniformity in this, is a sort of xenophobic protectionist reflexive act on the part of many Muslims. An attempt to obscure and hide the glory of Islam from outsiders and to keep it only for Arabs. But if that is to be, it is to be. Scott P. (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Did you follow the links I showed you? It's simple, boy, when searching in Google just click "Next" to the right of "Gooooooogle" at the bottom of the results page, and look at the hit count again. See? — kashmiri TALK 19:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
In any case, this discussion (1) should be on the topic talk page, and (2) should have been enjoined before renaming the page. Radical changes in Wikipedia require consensus. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
@Sfarney: Agreed. To be fair, Scottperry initiated such a discussion after he copied and pasted the page text to new title [3], but it got lost after I reverted the "move". — kashmiri TALK 20:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Tantra Contributions[edit]

Dear Kashmiri, You have deleted my contributions on the grounds that they 'appeared to be promotions'. The goal of Wikipedia is to provide information on a particular topic in an easily accessible way. Prabuddha Bharata is an English monthly journal in its 121st year and has a great reputation in humanities. This journal has brought out a special number on Reflections on Tantra, which has contributions from reputed academics all over the world covering all disciplines of Tantra. Just reading this one issue, readers can have a comprehensive idea of the subject and that is why it was uploaded by me. Did you go through the contents and the brief introductions of the authors who have written there? I suggest that you do that. Just deleting the contributions is not doing any service to the Wikipedia community. Thank you.Sudhavedanta (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Sudhavedanta, I did not delete any links to Prabuddha Bharata at Tantra, also you did not add such links - unless you edited as User:ProwlingRaven (but see WP:SOCK if this is the case) and were reverted by Dharmalion76. I believe this journal issue is of value to the topics and can be added, but under "Further reading" and not under "External links" (see WP:EXT for policy). It does contain quite a few interesting articles in English (even if its many articles look at Tantra from hopelessly Advaita point of view, others concern specifically the Ramakrishna Mission, and still others are reprints of 19th century (!) publications).
As to your edits at Prabuddha Bharata that I actually reverted, (1) the long list of contributors, none of which is individually notable for Wikipedia, violated WP:NLIST; while (2) the poem did not help the readers in the slightest degree to understand what Prabuddha Bharata journal is all about. Wikipedia articles do not normally contain poems – there is a sister project called Wikisource created specifically for this purpose, so feel free to add the poem there and link to it from within the article. Hope this helps. Regards, — kashmiri TALK 12:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Kashmiri, All the articles in Prabuddha Bharata are in the English language and include Kashmir Shaivism, Shrividya, Buddhist Tantra, and also Vaishnava Tantra. Please refer to someone qualified in Tantra and you will get the correct feedback. So, please add the issue to the Further Reading column. The list of contributors enables the readers to understand the history of the journal. Please keep in mind the readership and please understand that this journal is very reputed. Just because some people do not understand it cannot make the journal immaterial.Sudhavedanta (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sudhavedanta: Journal added. As to list of contributors, no the list does not enable the readers to understand anything. Readers are not familiar with the majority if not all of those surnames and will only be confused by throwing at them a list of ~50 surnames with no other information. High chances are that most of these names are not even notable enough to be included in Wikipedia – whilst per WP:NLIST, only people with independent notability should be included in embedded lists. Did you see any other journal article on Wikipedia that would list all its contributors? See, for instance, Nature for an example of a quality entry on a well-known journal. — kashmiri TALK 22:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Kashmiri, Almost all the entries in the list of contributors have separate Wikipedia entries for their names. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. All subjects should be covered here and so should be the humanities and social sciences. Prabuddha Bharata is a journal devoted to these disciplines. Not many may know of Rhys Davids, but he has contributed to various fields and has an entry in Wikipedia. So, please do not talk about 'chances'. Please verify before deleting. All these people are experts in their fields. When a person wants to know about a journal, they get a fair idea by seeing the contributors. Journals like Revue Philosophique and Mind may not be popular but are highly respected journals in philosophy. I understand that you want to serve the Wikipedia community by cleaning unwanted elements in entries. So do I. However, if we just clean material without verifying them, we can end up reducing the richness of Wikipedia. Having said that, I understand that it is really cumbersome to scroll down fifty entries. Instead, I can put them in a run-in format, so that the whole list would come in three or four lines. Also, I can give links to their respective Wikipedia pages. I think that would be good. What do you say? Sudhavedanta (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Kashmiri, I have told you the importance of the page and the journal and it is only five lines of text that does lot of help. I am a scholar in these fields and constantly communicate with fellow-scholars, who requested that such details be given. While you are doing good work helping the Wikipedia community, one cannot be an expert in all fields. There are thousands of Wikipedia pages about various issues and publications and persons, that run into many many more pages than this page of Prabuddha Bharata. So, what is the issue here, Kashmiri? Is this some kind of directed attack? First, you betrayed ignorance of all that was there in the page by saying that no contributor was worth the name. Now, you want to prove your supremacy by simply doing meaningless edits. Please do not misuse the Wikipedia space. Please end this that has now taken all forms of an edit war.Sudhavedanta (talk) 06:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sudhavedanta: You have been clearly told that no, this list is not acceptable per Wikipedia policies and Manual of Style. I also have serious doubts about your "list of contributors to the journal", considering that it includes Henry David Thoreau who died 30 years before the journal was founded. The January 2016 issue includes articles by Sir John Woodroffe without any comment - but Sir Woodroffe also died eighty years ago. I have doubts whether those authors wrote for Prabuddha Bharata or your journal just copied their texts. As your list is completely unsourced, I am sorry it cannot be part of the article. If you still don't agree, you are welcome to take the matter to WP:RFC. Additionally, please refrain from personal attacks if you don't want to be blocked from editing. Regards, — kashmiri TALK 16:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Kashmiri, Prabuddha Bharata was started in 1896. John Woodroffe wrote in it several times and those articles have been reprinted in this issue with an editorial note about the original issue in which it was published in. 117.243.181.64 (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Reverting edits on Microparticles page[edit]

Microparticles page as it stands right now is full of inaccurate and incomplete information. I was attempting to correct it and expand on it. I don't understand why you label my changes "spam." Why do you insist on keeping the incorrect information? I also don't understand why "microspheres" page was removed and now a redirect to "microparticles."MicrosphereExpert (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)MicrosphereExpert

@MicrosphereExpert: First, your edits were copied and pasted from a copyrighted source, which is a copyright violation. Second, all your links were to a commercial site that sells microparticles, and to another site run by the same company. This is a clear case of promotion which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Hope this clarifies. — kashmiri TALK 11:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Prabuddha Bharata list of contributors[edit]

I expect you to understand how important is a list of contributors in a serious journal like Prabuddha Bharata. Any person who is sincerely into academics shall understand that. I believe Wikipedia is not just for casual readers but also for such people who are earnestly into some research and are looking for meaningful articles. Your repetitive act of removing the list is absolutely unnecessary. While 'cleaning pages' I hope you do not let your personal biases influence you, which is presently the case . Nandini2311 (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is precisely for casual readers. You have been pointed, by many editors, to a number of Wikipedia policies that your edits keep violating, and I advise you to take time and read them before editing any further. Additionally, read WP:SOCK (you have been pointed this already). — kashmiri TALK 11:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Prabuddha Bharata List of Contributors[edit]

The English monthly journal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prabuddha_Bharata page requires a list of eminent contributors. The journal was started in 1896 and is now in its 121st year and is devoted to the humanities and the social sciences. The archives of the journal are available in a DVD. The list of the contributors was selected from these records. This journal is a reputed one and its copies are found in most libraries on humanities and social sciences. Since the list of contributors helps understand the work published in the journal, it was given. Some editors have cast aspersions on this list. I need help to protect this list. Sudhavedanta (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You should take the discussion to the talk page and start an RFC there.--Adam in MO Talk 13:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Removed RfC template as this is not what an RfC is meant for. Take the issue to the article talkpage and consider starting an RfC on the article talkpage, not a user talkpage. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 01:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Removing the BLPPROD tag from Łukasz Rzepecki[edit]

Hello. I noticed that you removed the BLPPROD tag from the Łukasz Rzepecki article without adding any sources. Yet, members of national parliaments are inherently notable, but biographies of living people need reliable sources. I added a source to the article, but next time, please do not remove the tag until the article is fixed. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Gene93k: Thanks. Added another source. — kashmiri TALK 13:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Yousuf Gabriel[edit]

Dear Kashmiri, I hope you are well. I know you are busy but I'll be very glad and grateful if you'll please look at the Yousuf Gabriel page and in particular at the deletion recommendation page. I believe the page clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO and may have been created by a fan (the only editor aside from me) to promote the sale of a book. In any event, the article relies on unacceptable or weak sources and says almost nothing that can be considered encyclopedic. Thanks and best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)