User talk:Nawabmalhi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Miscellaneous[edit]

Notes[edit]

References[edit]

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Nawabmalhi! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Faizan 16:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I have reported you to Wikipedia as per the above

Jebenoyon (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Nawabmalhi, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Nawabmalhi! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you![edit]

Erdbeerteller01.jpg Thanks for pointing out your concerns about Liaquat Ali Khan. Thanks again, and Welcome here! Faizan 16:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Nawabmalhi. You have new messages at Faizan's talk page.
Message added 16:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Faizan 16:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Sitush. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Jat Muslim, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Please could you read User:Sitush/Common#Castelists. It is not sufficient to source that a living person is claimed to belong to a certain caste or religion - they must self-identify as doing so. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Friend[edit]

Hi friend, I had thoroughly checked all the references personally from the original sources, I have reverted your edits to the article Ahmadiyya-Jewish relation. You may consider...

“Therefore in verse 17:105 the warning of the latter days relates to the period after the second coming of Jesus. The words 'shall bring you together' refer to the present influx of Jews into Palestine[1924]. Jews from different countries are offered facilities of travel and rehabilitation. The revelation of the Promised Messiah said, 'I will relieve the children of Israel.' This indicated a great change in the position of the Jews. It indicated the end of the opposition which nations of the world had made for so long to an independent home for the Jews.” (Invitation to Ahmadiyyat , Page 172 ; by Mirza Bashir ud Din Mahmud Ahmad (1924) [1]

Regards.--Drali1954 (talk) 06:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand that Ahmadiyyat says that the existence of Israel will happen but Ahmadis also are very pro-Palestinian aswell which is not once mentioned in the article in my perspective this article only shows one side of the coin which in turn made it lopsided an biased because it only emphasizes Ahmadiyyat's belief that Israel would become a state.

Thank you brother for your kindly and just comment. I have tried to highlight the "Religious aspect" and avoided any political polemics. I am aware of all that, which can be safely called "opposition" to the creation and status of Israel, in the Ahmadiyya history. However, I believe, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has also learned and grown over in many aspects..... Political realities are transient, relative and shifting. They have to be evaluated in the given temporal circumstances. Sincerely Yours Drali1954 (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

This is a Perfect example of a senior user trying to push around a newer user to conform with their ideals and beliefs (something that Wikipedia does NOT stand for). He later tried to get me banned several times on baseless alegations which proved to be completley False. This user later got banned for sockpuppetry for two weeks and later indefinitevely for direspectful and border line menacing behavior. The moral of the story is if you know an article is misrepresenting a paticular subject find verifiable references and change it even if there is POV resistance by some.[note 1]--Nawabmalhi (talk):

Information icon Hello, I'm Sikh-history. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Islam and Sikhism without thoroughly explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! SH 10:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC

First of all, I apologize for my late response( I had exams) and remmember:

[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.

The lead section of this article may need to be rewritten. The reason given is: No direct comparison of religions, simple summary of their teachings.. (October 2012) This article reads like an editorial or opinion piece. (October 2012) This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. (November 2009)

So let start from the beginning and what I took out:

"due to the Sikh faith's opposition to forced conversions." this is not only highly debated but also considered false and Sikhism advanced from a religous movement, to a religious regio-political movement trying to gain control and influence and did insurrections which were harshly and sometimes wrongly and abruptly met by forced conversion (in some rare instances) and other inhumane acts but these were not the cause of the Sikh rebellion against Mughals.

This was clearly not sourced and biased so I removed it.

"Which led to a British invasion of the Empire of the Sikhs. Soon after the British army began recruiting large number of Sikhs into the British Army, in which the Sikhs made up to 25% of the soldiers in World War I and World War II. This was under the Martial Race Theory that Sikhs were born warriors, which proved true as the Sikhs were awarded 14 Victoria Crosses for their bravery and over 27 battle honours (a record)."

Now this is no way related to the subject matter of the into of this article no matter which way you look at it and in no way does is it in enlighten the reader on Islam and Sikhism. Also it is historically inaccurate as the mas recruitment of the Sikh in the British army started after the Indian Rebellion of 1857 which the Sikhs did not participate in because they did not have a fondness for Mughals.
Now if I remember correctly I also deleted to comparison sections predestination and Gender equality.
Starting with predestination, Muslims are divided into 5 schools of theology: Khawarij,Murji'ah,Mu'tazila, and Ash'ari. They range in Belief of pure free will, to partial, to pure predestination so you cannot make a comparison what so ever due to such diversified views and the was no comparison made or reference provided.
Now the topic/section Role and Equality of Women is the most bizarre, biased, and completely against Wikipedia standards there is one verse quoted where men are told to protect women and all of a sudden Islam does not promote gender equality. Here are a few verses from the Quran:
Women are independent individuals, as exemplified by the fact that all human beings will be accountable for their own intentions and deeds on the Day of Judgment when "no human being shall be of the least avail to another human being" (82:19)
If men were ultimately responsible for women (fathers for their daughters, husbands for their wives, etc.), then this accountability would be solely on men's shoulders to bear until the Day of Judgment. But this is not the case: "And whatever wrong any human being commits rests upon himself alone; and no bearer of burdens shall be made to bear another's burden..." (6:165)
"Verily for all men and women who have surrendered themselves unto God, and all believing men and believing women, and all truly devout men and truly devout women, and all men and women who are true to their word, and all men and women who are patient in adversity, and all men and women who humble themselves before God, and all men and women who give in charity, and all self-denying men and self-denying women, and all men and women who are mindful of their chastity, and all men and women who remember God unceasingly: for all of them has God readied forgiveness of sins and a mighty reward." (33:35)
So this article again unreferenced, highly biased and completly unacceptable.
The rest was Unreferenced or unrelated to subject matter or Biased to an extremity. Also I would like to remind you of that I am being very lenient on this article and that:
[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.

The lead section of this article may need to be rewritten. The reason given is: No direct comparison of religions, simple summary of their teachings.. (October 2012) This article reads like an editorial or opinion piece. (October 2012) This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. (November 2009)

You Can't Delete Verifiable Refrences ...End Of[edit]

You can't delete WP:Verifiable references as you have done at Islam and Sikhism. What I suggest is you read about etiquette and format at Wikipedia. If you perist on reverting you will gather warnings and will be blocked. Also do not discuss articles on my talk page but on the article page. Thanks SH 14:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Islam and Sikhism, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. SH 14:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I donnot know what is wrong with you I have provided more than enough reasoning on your talk page and my own talk page. The content was either irrelevant, and the two sections I deleted had one or no refrences at all so I reallly donnot understand how their WP:Verifiable, and by the wayWP:Verifiable references by the way have to be neutral and that why I deleted it some other content.

You have acted very rudely and by the way you told to put my response on your user talk page. I am going to try to bring another editor whos more neutral into the discussion and again read this:
[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. The lead section of this article may need to be rewritten. The reason given is: No direct comparison of religions, simple summary of their teachings.. (October 2012) This article reads like an editorial or opinion piece. (October 2012) This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. (November 2009) Thank you
Read WP:Verifiable. The references don't have to be neutral but they DO have to be verifiable. That amounts to WP:Censor.The references in this case are verifiable. If you persist (alongside Gurpartap) you will be blocked. The page has been locked for the time being. I suggest WP:Mediation. Thanks SH 15:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Muhammad Zafarullah Khan[edit]

Hi, I make changes in the article Muhammad Zafarullah Khan about their religion. As Muhammad Zafarullah Khan was a Pakistani so their religion will also be judged by the Pakistani Law. As according to Pakistani and many other countries Qadiani/Ahmedi are Non-Muslim so Muhammad Zafarullah Khan is also a Non-Muslim called Ahmedi. So kindly revert your changes from Muslim to Qadiani. Thanks M. Adnan Khadim 11:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madnank (talkcontribs)

First of All, on Wikipedia and everywhere else (other than Pakistan) Ahmadis are considered Muslim. -- This in not a matter of debate on Wikipedia.
Secondly, the international community abhors this unconstitutional Pakistani amendment and so does the UN Human Rights Commission.
Do it again and I will request your blocking from Wikipedia. See WP:BP
You should read:
Wikipedia is for open minded people willing to learn and share.

Chowk.com[edit]

I was going to mention WP:DEADLINK but using Wayback to look at the site it obviously fails WP:RS in any case. Dougweller (talk) 06:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Punjabi People[edit]

Kindly dont change the article picture again and it is my request here. I have arranged them according to accomplishments. It is not to show Any Religious Diversity or Billionaires but to show their Achievements in General and their contributions rendered to the soceity. In the first line I have arranged Scientists and then came the Revolutionaries and then the political and other elite. When i say elite then I am talking about the people who are talking rich in terms of Intellectualism and who have contributed to the society. Billionaire is not a Big deal for me. It is not the Religious Background but the Accomplishment that matter the most.

Also Kindly keep in mind that I also Belong from Ahmedi background but we should not force somethings on others. We should be unbiased at all costs. Love for all , Hatred for None and also unbiased all the time.


I am trying to be unbiased...
Your trying to tell me Lala Lajpat Rai is a more famous, influential ,and important historical figure than Liaquat Ali Khan, Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, and Bhagat Singh. Turning to Vinod Khosla and Vinod Dham they have No real significance or importance to Punjabi people. You have to understand that they man others like them ie. Shahid Khan.
Now I do think we need to rearrange these figures but based on a combination of time period and their field of interest. For example the first and second row should be flipped. Also people like Amrita Pritam and Pash need to be removed and punjabi politicians in the west need to be in the same row(last or second last) such as Sayeda Warsi, Nikki Haley etc.
And my friend if you are truly of an "Ahmedi" background you would write Ahmadi Muslim or Ahmadi
I am not going to make any changes now because it involves a lot of work and research but this gives you a general idea
Nawabmalhi (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Well again i am stating that I have arranged the people according to the Profession in the first row and that is as simple as that. Muhammad Zafarullah Khan and Abdus Salam both are there. Bu I put Abdus Salam and Har Gobind Khorana on Top because in my view their contributions are greatest.Our Younger generation can get inspiration from them and get impetus for the general science and technology.. Also Vinod Dham and Founder of SUN Microsystems can be an inspiration as well.

Muhammad Zafarullah Khan is there but in the last because his contribution were not general but to the One Community of India and for Pakistan. Bhagat Singh , Lala Rajpat Rai talk about all of the India including Muslims and all and their contribution was more general.

The Inclusion of Pash is due to the fact that he is the forgotten author. Also he is one of the First authors in Punjab after the creation of India and Pakistan who talked about Revolutionary movements and that too in Punjabi. Since Punjabi poetry generally lack Revolutionary Writing so his mention is due to the fact of Revolutionary writing in Punjabi.

Amrita Pritam is there because she is the first Recognized Punjabi Woman that was recognized for her literature. The Poetess like Amrita Pritam can encourage our women to take on Literature as they have a role model in front of them.

Also as you mentioned i will rearrange the politicians as the time will progress.

My Basic aim is to add those personalities from which our younger generation can get inspiration. I really believe Science and Technology is the key that is why my emphasis is always on the Science, Technology in general. In the future i will add F. C. Kohli and Satish Dhawan in the first line as well as One is known as the father of Software technology in Indian and the other led to research in Fluid Dynamics and our generation can get inspiration from them.

Have a nice day. Also kindly try to dispute the Qadiani article as it is an Offensive term and some stupid guy is stating that is the second name of Ahmedi Muslims and that is Biased and Intolerant in my view.Mooch025 (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mufti Muhammad Sadiq, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages English and America (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) 08:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sa'd ibn Mu'adh may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Umaiya decided not to go but Abu Jahl said to him, "You are from the nobles of the valley of Mecca), so you should accompany us for a day or two." He went with them and thus Allah got him killed.<
  • ]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Barlas debate[edit]

Moved to Talk:Barlas

Dear Sir:

Recently you have made misleading edits that constitute vandalism on the "Barlas" page on Wikipedia. To the ethnicity of the Barlas as being Turko-Mongol you added "Persianized" - this is a general and ambiguous term and there is no way to verify such an assertion - you then footnoted it with a book on the Persians but never really provided the exact quote you are relying upon - first, I would ask you do that, and second, even if you can provide the exact quote from the book on the Persians, I suggest you examine the validity of such an assertion.

Barlas is a world wide clan that was originally Mongol and then was Turkicized through intermarriage with Turks - Iran was one of many countries ruled by this clan and to use this simple fact to assert they were "Persianized" seems inappropriate and misleading and an attempt at trying to reduce the authenticity of the facts on this page.

Also, how can you change "Central Asia" to "Greater Persia" when Central Asia is what exists in fact and "Greater Persia" is just a concept or a term of reference and does not exist in fact?

I have seen your previous edits and it seems your efforts to change the ethnicity and culture of the Barlas clan are aimed at a personal agenda to contend, perhaps due to your religious inclinations, as has been unsuccessfully tried before, that the Barlas were associated with Persia. Sir, your words cannot change the truth and I would ask you refrain from playing with such things for personal motives. If you persist with trying to dilute the quality of this article with misleading assertions, I will notify Wikipedia and ask them to ban you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jebenoyon (talkcontribs) 01:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


I am sorry if I have hurt your feelings, but I have no personal agenda. The fact of the matter is that the Barlas tribe is not just found in Central Asia but also in Iran, Afghanistan,Pakistan, and India. Their are more people who claim descent from the Barlas tribe in Pakistan, India, and Iran (individually) than in all of Central Asia. In Central Asia, Iran and South Asia cannot be included.

All the references curently used in the article indicate the Barlas as part of the fabric of greater Persia. --Removed shouting. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 05:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Now Greater Persia is not a concept, its a reality. Greater Persia is not based of ethnic homogeneity but instead of a cultural and linguistic identity built through various empires Achaemenids, Parthians, Sassanians,Abbasids(1000-1300)/Buyyids, Ilkhanate, Chagatai Khanate, Samanids, Timurids Safavids,Mughal Empire and Afsharids and the Qajar Empire who all ruled Greater Persia.(bolded means ethnically turco-mongol dynasty- notice that all had Persian as their official language and used it in their elite circles)

Most of the Barlas tribe did adopt Persian customs, language, religion(Islam), titles and married within the local Persians and later South Asians by mid-14th century. The adoption of native vernaculars by elites in place of Persian started in parts of Central Asia in the 18th century although Persian was used for administrative purposes.

Now I know this article means alot to you, but I hope you put your personal opinion aside.

I have not made any changes to allow you to respond if you dont I will revert your edits, and if you persist on doing deconstructive edits you will get a warning first.. so on and so on... Thank you for voicing your concerns --Nawabmalhi (talk) 05:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


You have not hurt my feelings. Nor have you answered my questions nor provided a source for your assertions. And you did revert my changes unlike what you claimed on the page.

"Persianized" is a vague and ambiguous term, and "Greater Persia" does not exist today. What you are doing is like calling France a part of Greater Rome which no longer exists.

It is also clear from looking at this page what you are doing. You are trying, consistently, to make highly contentious assertions all over Wikipedia, in an effort to try and validate the highly contentious assertions made by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the founder of your religion, who claimed to be Barlas and to be "Persianized" at one point. You cannot recreate reality in an effort to mould it to be consistent with your beliefs.

As for Wikipedia, you enjoy no special status with them and can get warned and then kicked out yourself. I have made a lot more contributions to this subject and it is evident and transparent what you are trying to do. In fact, it is plain sad.

Jebenoyon (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


It seems you did not read my response, and are resorting flaunting pitifull accusations, and your analogies are illogical. (France is part of Wertern Civilization continuum Romans are Greek/ originaters of Western Civlization) Now: 1. All turco-mongol dynasties adopted the persian language, culture, religion etc. 2. The Barlas in central Asia account for a very SMALL portion of the total population of Barlas so you have to have the Indian subcontinent and Iran. 3. Again ALL of the references used clearly show the Barlas are and have been persianized, EVEN the name of one of the references is "The Persians" for God's sake 4. Greater Persia and Persianized are words used and linked countless articles on Wikipedia

Thank you for bringing it to dispute resolution to settle it.--Nawabmalhi (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fateh Muhammad Sial, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page King Faisal. 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) 09:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Barlas page[edit]

References are not specific and do not meet Wikipedia guidelines. We have been through this with the dispute resolution process where the editor viewed all your references and said wording would not be changed and you agreed. Your current references are wrong and out of context. There is no reference to support Barlas originated in Central Asia and this is factually wrong – it says right in the body of the article that the Barlas were Mongols – some of them moved to Central Asia after its conquest – the grammar of the wording is wrong too. Reference 7 only states “In late Timurid Transoxiana the perfect ruler was a Persianized, Islamicized Turko- Mongol Aristocrat” – this is a far cry from saying the Barlas as a whole were Persianized. Reference 8 talks about the effects of some degree of Persianization of the Timurid rulers’ lifestyles, tastes and bureaucratic organizations but states they very much remained who they were. Again, this is a completely out of context reference. The Wikipedia dispute resolution page shows that the closing editor rejected all the arguments made by you and said the wording would remain the same to which you agreed. If you look at the history you did nothing for 3 weeks after the dispute resolution and then again went back and tried to change the next few lines with the same content on which you were overruled in dispute resolution. I have now asked for Administrator Assistance, where you have again repeated your previous arguments that were rejected by the closing editor, but since no one has responded yet you are now again trying to change the wording and using your own wrong arguments in support! I now asked a third party editor who has read a lot on this and he supports me too. Here is what he had to say.

Hi and thank you for the message. I am not a scholar on the subject, but I have read quite a lot about it. Do not worry about the other user. Your criticism of his edits is correct. Stating that the Barlas - as a whole - were "Persianized", is wrong. The Barlas were an originally Mongol nomadic confederation and they were well aware of their Mongol origins and identity. Like many other Mongols, they were progressively Turkicized. Most of all, because back then, there was not much difference between Turks and Mongols (hence "Turko-Mongol"): they had the same appearance, had the same habits and even their languages were similar. It was only the ruling elite that was culturally Persianized in later episodes, such as the Timurids and Mughals. But they never lost their Turko-Mongol identity. It was not until the Mughal ruler Akbar that this clan fully gave up its Turko-Mongol identity and became Persianized. That was mostly due to Humayun's long exile in Persia as well as the great influence of Persian aristrocrats and scholars at the Mughal court. It was also due to Akbar himself who had no interest in Turkic or Mongol culture and was known as a great patron of Persian art and language. In later years, the Mughals became almost entirely Indicized. The last Mughal emprer, Bahadur Shah, was known as a poet of Urdu. Urdu had become the first language of the Mughals while Persian remained the language of court. Turkic and Mongolian had no importance and none of the Mughals was able to speak Chagatay Turkic. Regards. --Lysozym (talk) 10:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Jebenoyon (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Again this is why I specifically wrote the Timurids and Mughals (something you forgot to tell him) and promised and agreed not to write the Barlas as a whole were persianized(unless I had references to support that) because I understood your sentiment. I cannot reply in detail but I will talk to this you and this editor in detail but again I have said it a hundred times: persianization is not ethnic. The reason I did not do anything for 3 weeks I was studying for my last test and final exam in my Universities Summer semester and the day I took my final exam I was back editing the Barlas.(I am responding from my University right now since my fall semester has now started). And recently I was camping in middle of the woods in Pennsylvania over the weekend with no internet for MKA Ijtema you can probably correspond that aswell. --Nawabmalhi (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Chawinda[edit]

With reference to your edit summary, did you verify the sources when you made this edit? [2] As another editor is reverting it back to the previous version without giving any reasoning but I don't want to editwar with him unless he is just vandalizing. Kindly leave me a talk back. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi TopGun
Yes I have verified the sources a year before too, I have reverified it again here:
While looking through the archives I found a aditional reference from Canberra Times talking about the battle (talks of Pakistani Victory):
--Nawabmalhi (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Wow! This has been editwarred over for ages by vandals and POV pushers. I knew about Fricker as I have that book but thought the second source was contradicting it or something. Thanks for confirming my suspicions! Great catch! --lTopGunl (talk) 04:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
These are still not reliable sources. First one is an image, and other is representation of what a Pakistani military commander(WP:PRIMARY) had claimed. You can check WP:RSN#Newspaper_sources. I am notifying you because you are not watching the article or replying to any pings that were sent to you. Also letting know Sitush and Faizan since they have observed your changes and these pages. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 12:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
The image of the paper is there as a courtesy to you. The source is the news paper itself. I don't know what you mean by putting it aside because an image was linked to further support the source's verifiability inspite of it not being required per WP:SOURCEACCESS (feel free to go to a library and read the actual paper yourself if you would like). --lTopGunl (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
@OccultZone the reason why I am ignoring you is that with all do respect it seems as if you are continuously trolling the Chawinda page, for lack of a better word and I donnot time for that. Now if you want me reiterate TopGun I will. You donnot need to provide a link to the Source/reference it is just a good practice because it allows other people interested subject to access it and also helps in its verifiability, but its not necessary. Ask youself:
  • What does stalemate mean? and does retreating and not completing an objective after being pushed back a stalemate?
  • What source or reference have I even brought even one source to prove that proves their was a stalemate?
  • Would there really be any point for India to sign the Takshent Agreement if she could even hold the pakistanis in Chawinda, especially looking at is victories in the Lahore Front?
  • Is my patriotism clouding my judgement?
I am going to sleep (Live in America)--Nawabmalhi (talk) 05:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It seems like you are the one busy in misrepresenting the source and WP:TROLLING in order to make something that is beyond the WP:POINT. It has been already clarified that none of your unreliable sources can be used for claiming the results as one of the article has only represented a military commander's view and other one is just an image hosted on a selfpublished unreliable blog.(see FAKEREFERENCE The way you have plastered the article with the one sided view of a Pakistani commader is clearly disruptive. How about you just check your other edits that you have made on few other articles, and even on this page, issue is not ending with the source falsification, but also other meaningless changes like [3] when according to the source, it is "The Pakistanis admitted losing 44 tanks in the Sialkot sector, but claimed 120 Indian tanks," per page 35. Since your incompetence is more than clear. I am notifying you about DS related to Afghanistan, India, Pakistan articles. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 10:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Citation Barnstar Hires.png The Citation Barnstar
This is definitely deserved. I would have left that vandalism there if it was not for the source verification thinking it to be just dispute looking at the way it was standing... POV pushing on this article was removing this on pretext of sources since 2012 and before and stepwise to a completely opposite statement which is ridiculous. lTopGunl (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

List of Ahmadis[edit]

Hi,

Mujaddid Ahmed Ijaz is not a member of the ahmadiyya community per link you provided. Thanks. --Peaceworld 19:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Peaceworld111 read the link/reference carefully.His son Mansoor Ijaz was kicked out of Jamaat Mujaddid Ahmed Ijaz and the rest of his children and family are devout Ahmadis, I know them personally aswell--Nawabmalhi (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting me.--Peaceworld 18:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Rabwah Times[edit]

I have removed "Rabwah Times" once again. Please go to the Talk page and discuss why it should be added before undoing my change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rabwah#Rabwah_Times. Sohebbasharat (talk) 10:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1953 Lahore riots, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Muslim league. 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) 09:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Sitush. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Cheema, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Ahmedis[edit]

Please explain this edit? (There was no edit summary). Because they were Ahmedis? Faizan 10:47, 1 December 2014

I saw that Abdul Ali Malik provided services in 1971 too, whereas Akhtar Hussain Malik only till 1969. So the removal oflatter was justified, what about the first one? Faizan 10:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Faizan
Abdul Ali Malik was removed because although he was in charge of Sialkot sector his forces did not engage the Indians other than a few minor skirmishes as far as I know.I kept Gen Iftikhar Janjua, also an Ahmadi, because he continously engaged the Indians in Chamb sector and won one of the few real victories and some say 'only' real victory the Battle of Chamb. If you think he should be their feel free to add him back.--Nawabmalhi (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

AE[edit]

The source you gave is being labeled as fake here, so you might want to respond at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Topgun. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I am going to try to find confirmation for the Australian reference from another website.--Nawabmalhi (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, it would be even better snapping a copy of the print paper if available (might be already available in a news paper archive). I'm still waiting for my access at British News Paper archives through the wikipedia library, don't know if they keep The Australian though. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • A user started an RFC, this may also affect to some extent the consensus present about the infobox and victory states, you may comment at the RFC about the sources and infobox here. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Source misrepresentation[edit]

You are misrepresenting sources on Battle of Chawinda. None of your sources have a mention of "victory", regarding the battle, and each of them were already added, except a new one which is also misrepresented. You cannot remove maintenance template and edit war over them until you have resolved. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 21:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not edit warring at all. The sources are in discussion if they are valid or not on the Talk page and it is you opinion that they are being misrepresented, not necessarily a fact (as of now).Lets ignore the newspapers and look at the books for a moment:
  • Fricker says: "After the Battle of Chawinda, which proved to be a blood bath for Chaudhuris Indian Army. India pleaded its case for an unconditional ceasefire..."
  • Zaloga compares Indian 1st division at Chawinda to Pakistani 1st division at Asal Uttar and how they were defeated by smaller forces
  • Cohen and Dagupta also compare Asal Uttar and Chawinda and call it a debacle.
To me the newspaper discussion is a valid one, but verification for the top 3 sources which are already verified does not makesense at all. It is also important to add the link to Fricker and provide the page number and name for the Zaloga reference which I did. These 3 references together are quite clear.--Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
While Zaloga had already considered the result of this battle as a ceasefire, none of your sources have mentioned "victory" or any related terms like "opponent's defeat" or anything else, that's how you are misrepresenting the sources. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 21:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
You are 100% right that is why a ceasefire is listed in the result section as one of the results. Please be reasonable:
If someone is saying it is a Indian blood bath, others are calling it the Indian version of the Battle of Asal Uttar, and Zaloga is saying it is a defeat, dont you think that this means the same as victory?--Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
If they are only explaining with a single sentence without mentioning victory or defeat, it becomes redundant for result parameter. Zaloga is talking about 25 cavalry not about the nation. Read WP:SYNTH and have some WP:COMPETENCE. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 22:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Zaloga is talking about both 1st division and 25th calvalry and they fought for India at Chawinda so they do represent India as a Nation at Chawinda --Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Not alone, because they were just one of the many cavalry regiment who had participated in the battle. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 22:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014[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. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 01:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Watch out for Occult topic ban trap[edit]

Hi your walking on a very thin line Occultzone has canvassed lots of Indian users to get as many Pakistani users topic banned as possible I suggest you also propose topic bans for Occultzone since hes been creating so many problems lately with his Indian propaganda. Try and canvass other users its allowed because Occultzone rallied Indian nationalists through messages and emails on wikiproject India try and contact pakistani users to help you hes already got support from a indian user to get you topic banned good luck brother your dealing with a very crafty undercover nationalist. 82.132.239.251 (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I know and I have seen it before, no matter what the outcome will be he will not step over me. I am going to present my case clearly and answer any question raised, but if I go to his low then there will be no difference between us. If he still fools the Admin, it will be for the best as no genuine effort goes to waste. --Thank You for your support Nawabmalhi (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iftikhar Khan Janjua, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page COAS. 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) 09:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Islam and blasphemy.[edit]

1)I tried to find the Hadith but could not. Please advise which book can it be from 2)I have proposed the merger of the said article with Blasphemy Law. Please take a look at the talk page and give your feedback. 3)I have proposed adding the tradition of Abu Lahabs wife throwing intestines at the doorstep. Please view the talk page and give your feedbackFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi FreeatlastChitchat,
1.Many events of the life of Muhammad are not narrated in Hadith books... But instead in far earlier sources called the Seerah (or biographies) the most famous is the Seerah of Ibn Hisham which is shorter version of Ibn Ishaq(as Hisham removed some of the contradictory parts of Ishaq) and Ibn Saad (the less remembered one) along with other early biographers who have narrated this event. Coupled with the fact that there are so many similar events that are mentioned in various seerah and hadith collections, this is a relatively reliable narration. Here is a link to help you understand the various sources from which the life of Muhammad is derived from:
2. I donnot think a page called Blasphemy Law actually exists?
3. I think it is better that you write/put both traditions or Narrations in the article.
---If you have any other other questions feel free to ask me! Nawabmalhi (talk) 05:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Good morning/afternoon/evening Nawabmalhi
Thank you for the info. I am well aware of what you said. I intentionally do not want to include the narration of Ibn Hisham and Ibn Ishaq in the heading of "Hadith". It will lead to other people just getting random incidents and claiming blasphemy. Personally I like the tradition of abu Lahabs wife because it is in Hadith i.e the six authentic books and it is of a notable women not a random incident.
The page exists, I have no idea why wiki shows red link, just select the text and google it, the page has the same title so wiki showing red link is beyond me.
I personally think we merge this with the blasphemy law until we can write a suitable article, which may take upto a month.

FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

If you mean the Blasphemy page Islam Section, I would say yes, but if you mean Blasphemy law page I would say no because it is talking about countries. If it was none of them just give me the article URL. --Nawabmalhi (talk) 05:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I meant Blasphemy law because almost the entire article is comprised of information about how blasphemy is punished in various countries. apart from the section "Blasphemy in Quran", which contains one line and the section "Blasphemy in Hadith" which contains one tradition, everything else is about how different countries punish blasphemy according to their laws. nothing is said about "Islam" per say.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
@FreeatlastChitchat, I donnot think it is a good idea as 'blasphemy law' does not really have any justification in Hadith and Quran, moreover there is no other religion mentioned on the Blasphemy law page, and again it would only wrongly confuse readers to thinking Islam does not allow Seperation of Church and State. To be honest a merge may also draw controversy from Anti-Islam POV editors which is funny since no other religion has a topic about Blasphemy. I think only feasible merge would be Islam Section of Blasphemy page.--Nawabmalhi (talk) 06:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
My opinion is that we take the information in the following sections and merge it with blasphemy law and delete the other sections which are merely repetitions and are against the Title of the article.
Examples of Blasphemy
Examples of Blasphemy(minus the blasphemy against God and Prophet, as those two sections show that there is no punishment for blasphemy in Islam)
Blasphemers

My view is that no other religion has an article dedicated to blasphemy, but many christian majority countries have blasphemy laws, therefore this is a contemporary issue and equating it with religion is meaningless. analogy is that "Christianity does not have any blasphemy punishment therefore the page "blasphemy in christianity" does not exist, hence the page "Islam and blasphemy" should not exist as Islam has no punishment for blasphemy" FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Kahloon clan[edit]

Hello, Nawabmalhi,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Kahloon clan should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kahloon clan .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Vanjagenije (talk) 12:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: WP:BLUD on Talk:Battle of Chawinda[edit]

Nawabmalhi, I have closed this discussion. I found that the consensus in that thread was to impose a topic ban on both you & TheSawTooth concerning tall military pages about India and Pakistan. Consider this an indefinite ban -- that is, a ban that could last forever, or only a few days -- until you can convince enough people on WP:AN/I to lift it. My advice is for you to simply stay away from the article & its talk page & let things be for a few months before seeking to lift this ban. Doing otherwise could lead to you being subjected to more extensive bans. -- llywrch (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@llywrch sorry for bother:
Can you give the specific reason for the topic ban as some of the users have literally said 'before he do anything' etc which is not reason (I need it if I want to appeal after a while). Also I have no history and never have been accused,what so ever before this, of vandalizing or disrupting an military articles related to the India and Pakistan, instead all I have gotten are thank yous from Indian and Pakistani users(You can confirm this). Should this ban not be limited to the article and talkpage?
---Thank you Nawabmalhi (talk)
The points are set forth in VandVictory's original post:[4] inability to understand English WP:CIR, & rapidly removing tags from the article concerning issues without solving the issue or adding a reliable source. It would be best if you study these parts of the guidelines & practice them on other articles before asking to have your block lifted. -- llywrch (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead for Islamic schools and branches[edit]

Dear Nawabmalhi, I am sorry to see that you objected to the lead I wrote for Islamic schools and branches; do you think you could perhaps explain your problems at Talk:Islamic schools and branches#Lead section expanded to summarise the distinctions? Regards, PJTraill (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

March 2015[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Mahensingha. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Template:Rajput Groups because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Destined links do not confirm the Rajput identity of the inclusions made by you. Please make use of talk page to obtain consensus before attempting for an edit. Mahensingha (Talk) "Thanx n Regards" 21:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Citing[edit]

Hi, your efforts at Bhutta Rajputs and elsewhere are becoming a real pain. It's great that you are citing sources but you are doing it in a way that may ultimately be pointless because of linkrot etc. I've fixed one example there and wonder whether you might use that as a basis for fixing the other citations that you added.

I also note that in the case of that specific article you have completely ignored the subject, which is the Rajput lineage. I have no idea why you are mixing Jats in with it. If there isn't enough material to justify Bhutta Jat then I think the solution is to drop the "Rajput" word, renaming the article as Bhutta and removing the redirect that currently exists. - Sitush (talk) 08:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)- Sitush (talk) 08:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush I sincerely apologize, I will use proper citation from now on and slowly retrace and fix previous citations I have done. Most indigenous Rural tribes in the Punjab have a dual identity of Jat and Rajput. So unlike other regions in South Asia were caste affiliations are much more defined and finite like Sindh and Haryana. Almost always, the distinction through Jat and Rajput is made through geography and fertility of the land a tribe occupies, their occupation, and their fluid social standing. In fact, in some parts of Pakistani Punjab that the two neighboring villages of the same clan will have different markers one village will identify as Rajput the other Jat. While in Indian Punjab, even tribes such as Janjua or Minhas who have never historically have been called Jats, are still called Jats there.
From what I have found, the Bhutta largely identify as Jatt although they unanimously claim Rajput ancestory. However, pockets of Bhutta in arid Bahawalnagar district (Pakistan) and in Rajasthan identify themselves as Rajput. I was going to request a move but completely forgot about it (cannot do it myself). There are two articles under Bhutta: Bhutta Rajputs and Bhutta caste. The second article is a replicate and uses the same source as Bhutta Rajput article and is largely not based of the source so should be deleted anyway.--Thank you Nawabmalhi (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Gujrat District[edit]

Hi Nawabmalhi i noticed that u reverted my improvements in Gujrat District through edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gujrat_District&oldid=657129121 where i corrected Disambiguating links. Was there any mistake from my end? Now since you have made changes at your end, i request you to please make necessary disambiguating corrections there.( !dea4u  04:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC))

@!dea4u You did nothing wrong, it was the few editors before you, I simply restored the article to a more stable version and that disambiguous problem was fixed by itself aswell . Although you were accidentally linking the disambiguous pages back to the Article itself.--Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 05:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

tell me[edit]

Why did you undid my edit? It seemed as vandalism, although you are an experienced wikipedian. -- AHLM13 talk 18:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@AHLM13 Muhammad Zafarullah Khan has been called called Sir Zafarullah, Chaudhry Zafarullah etc. His full name is Chaudhry Sir Muhammad Zafarullah Khan. I am not Sure if you can include a title Such Al Haj though, because it is technically not part of his name. The title of the article is usually what the person is known by.--Nawabmalhi (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

OZ and a topic ban that you got via socked consensus[edit]

I think you were topic banned by a consensus formed mostly based on 4 user accounts that were all used by OccultZone; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OccultZone that DoRD revealed, it would automatically be void but you might like getting it appealed. I was sure of this disruption then as well, but ironically I was sanctioned for "casting aspirations" which were obviously true and well placed. It appears he also used atleast one sock at that report too. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you TopGun for the update. This is not that surprising and I actually said at the Administrator Noticeboard that VandVictory and నిజానికి seemed to be Socks. Later on, this account Bladesmulti started appearing on the articles I edit (specifically Ahmadiyya related) right near the end of Administer Noticeboard drama and had similar interests as Occultzone and I was sure he was Occultzones sock but I could not prove it due to to Occultzone's sheer number of edits. Thank you again for telling me about yhis.--Nawabmalhi (talk) 13:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome. Sometimes we know it by experience but WP:AGF requires as to give them the benefit of doubt. Even before this, Battle of Chawinda article was infested with socks. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Promised Messiah. 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) 09:31, 30 July 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) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya Project[edit]

--Peaceworld 08:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

August 2016[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Kautilya3. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Shah Nawaz Bhutto, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 Did you bother looking at my edit summary? It said:"reverting vandalism". Did you bother looking at cited source? It says Rajput. I am assuming Good faith and reverting your edit. --Thank you Nawabmalhi (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Oops! Sorry, I missed that. I reinstated your edit now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Problamistic User Uanfala[edit]

It had been extended edit war by Uanfala [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] .

  • Despite nearly 10 Wikipedians not agreeing with his views on talk pages of effected Talk pages.
  • He cherry picks and tries to define dialects in to Language.
  • Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
  • Wikipedians can not cherry pick.
  • Wikipedians can not impose a point a view.
  • Wikipedians move with consensus.
  • Wikipedia is an informational project. It can not misguide about language hierarchy.
  • Only standardisation of few dialects can not make them language. However few follow this rule for defining Hindko Saraiki Potwari as language. He cherry pick those.
  • Even those "few" along with "opposite others" have details whether "Explicit" or "Implicit" which demonstrate a common hierarchy Language Family: Indo European, Branch: Indo Iranian, Sub branch: Indo Aryan, Macro Language: Punjabi, Language: Western Punjabi, Dialects: Potwari Hindko Saraiki and many others, Sub dialects: North Hindko South Hindko.
  • All such linguistic sources are mentioned / added by many wikipedians.
  • If we accept Uanfala version of "cherry pick" and "Defining" then we will end up with a dilemma mentioned by User Flipro on this move request for 30 odd Punjabi dialects [10].

Time to report User Uanfala for topic ban for Cherry picking, Forum shoping, Edit warring, ignoring talk page consensus on Saraiki, Hindko and Potwari dialect talk pages. Please you being a registered senior editor start the proceeding for Topic Ban and violation of 3Rs. 39.60.232.41 (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)₯€₠€₯

The above message was also posted on the talk pages of several other users, and it has already received responses on Andy Wang's and on Paine Ellsworth's. – Uanfala (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Nawabmalhi. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Saraiki dialect[edit]

I had filed a DRN against Uanfala and Robert was moderator who had given decision that first line of article should not be written as Saraiki language. You being extended confirmed user please make following edits to comply with DRN moderator decision.

  • Dialect section: to be renamed as "Subdialects" and rewritten as "The sub dialects tentatively proposed for Saraiki  :[27] are Central Saraiki, including Multani, Sindhi Saraiki, Southern Saraiki of Rajanpur and Rahim Yar Khan Districts. Eastern Saraiki which is transitional to Standard Punjabi, Northern Saraiki, or Thali of the Thal Desert. The dialects tentatively proposed for Saraiki by ethnologue are Bahawalpuri (Reasati, Riasati), Derawali, Jatki, Multani (Khatki). The name "Derawali" is used to refer to the local dialects of both Dera Ghazi Khan and Dera Ismail Khan, but "Ḍerawali" in the former is the Multani dialect and "Derawali" in the latter is the Thaḷi dialect.[28][29]
I am looking at this controversey in more depth. However, it seems to be pretty clear by Uanfala is definetley wants to mold the Punjabi dialect pages to his viewpoints which sometimes differ from reality. The most alarming was him moving Majhi to East Punjabi dialects although it is actually a Western Punjabi dialect. But it also seems that you are also pushing a puritanical viewpoint even though yours maybe closer to the truth. I suggest that you should also be carefull. However, I am busy today.--Thank you Nawabmalhi (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, the above comment is in all likelihood by a sock of LanguageXpert. And if you have any sources about Majhi being a western dialect, please share them. Thanks. – Uanfala (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@Uanfala I donnot gave acess to a computer right now, I can only suggest that you look up: The international Encyclopedia of Linguists published by oxford university and search for Western Punjabi.--Thank you Nawabmalhi (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
International encyclopedia of linguistics / edited by William J. Frawley. OUP. (2009)? It doesn't have an entry on Western Punjabi or Lahdna and its article about Punjabi doesn't talk about eastern or western dialects. – Uanfala (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@Uanfala Here: https://books.google.com/books?id=sl_dDVctycgC&pg=RA2-PA199&dq=majhi+western+punjabi&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZh8qM4P7RAhUB64MKHZwECHg4ChDoAQgkMAI#v=onepage&q&f=false This also seems to support your view of Saraiki as a seperate language on the same page.--Nawabmalhi (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
This only mentions Majhi in the context of Western Punjabi, but doesn't make a claim that it belongs there. This text seems like a summary of what's on ethnologue. The idiosyncratic nomenclature followed by ethnologue confusingly has "Western Punjabi" referring to the Standard Punjabi of Pakistan (which is an eastern variety), and "Eastern Punjabi" referring only to those eastern varieties that are spoken in India. And this doesn't correspond to the eastern/western distinctions that are made in the literature. – Uanfala (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

Information icon Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing an article on Wikipedia, you will see a small field labeled "Edit summary" shown under the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

 

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → check Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Nawabmalhi. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).

  1. ^ https://www.ethnologue.com/language/skr/17
  2. ^ https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=zn8I4qEew9oC&pg=PA121&dq=Saraiki+Punjabi+variant)&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiR5-GNktrQAhXBWhQKHab8AFY4ChDoAQgXMAA#v=onepage&q=Saraiki%20Punjabi%20variant)&f=false
  3. ^ https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=anTNCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA417&dq=Saraiki+Punjabi+variant)&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNksvtkdrQAhUF6xQKHS-CCVUQ6AEIGDAA#v=onepage&q=Saraiki%20Punjabi%20variant)&f=false
  4. ^ https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=w1m-AIPgzDAC&pg=PT208&dq=Saraiki+Punjabi+variant)&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNksvtkdrQAhUF6xQKHS-CCVUQ6AEIHTAB#v=onepage&q=Saraiki%20Punjabi%20variant)&f=false
  5. ^ https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=_iGrDAAAQBAJ&pg=PT462&dq=Saraiki+Punjabi+variant)&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNksvtkdrQAhUF6xQKHS-CCVUQ6AEINDAF#v=onepage&q=Saraiki%20Punjabi%20variant)&f=false
  6. ^ https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=VLZmCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA103&dq=Saraiki+Punjabi+variant)&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNksvtkdrQAhUF6xQKHS-CCVUQ6AEIOjAG#v=onepage&q=Saraiki%20Punjabi%20variant)&f=false
  7. ^ https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2098.html
  8. ^ http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/asian_languages.htm
  9. ^ https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=qVgWAQAAMAAJ&q=Saraiki+Punjabi+variant)&dq=Saraiki+Punjabi+variant)&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiR5-GNktrQAhXBWhQKHab8AFY4ChDoAQhEMAg
  10. ^ "Western Panjabi". Ethnologue. Retrieved 21 July 2016. 
  11. ^ https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=iFe3BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA144&dq=Saraiki+Punjabi+variant)&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiR5-GNktrQAhXBWhQKHab8AFY4ChDoAQg1MAU#v=onepage&q=Saraiki%20Punjabi%20variant)&f=false
  12. ^ https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=BfukTDZTBNMC&pg=PA133&dq=saraiki+dialect&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKkb_zlNrQAhUEWBQKHTM2AlgQ6AEIGDAA#v=onepage&q=saraiki%20dialect&f=false
  13. ^ https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=Pb0QAwAAQBAJ&pg=PR10&dq=saraiki+dialect&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKkb_zlNrQAhUEWBQKHTM2AlgQ6AEIIDAC#v=onepage&q=saraiki%20dialect&f=false
  14. ^ https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=PnlDAAAAYAAJ&q=saraiki+dialect&dq=saraiki+dialect&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKkb_zlNrQAhUEWBQKHTM2AlgQ6AEIJjAD
  15. ^ https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=dL4NAAAAIAAJ&q=saraiki+dialect&dq=saraiki+dialect&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiD-bibldrQAhVCOBQKHfTEAlo4ChDoAQg9MAg
  16. ^ https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=zzjbCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA21&dq=Saraiki+Punjabi+variant)&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiR5-GNktrQAhXBWhQKHab8AFY4ChDoAQgpMAM#v=onepage&q=Saraiki%20Punjabi%20variant)&f=false
  17. ^ https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=nTKBAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA405&lpg=PA405&dq=Punjabi+dialects+University,+Patiala,+State+of+Punjab&source=bl&ots=uWIQMN7vuR&sig=A-e3sM3XJbgFzZpV_bjCx7Fvx00&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjthOWwl9rQAhUGsBQKHRzDCFY4ChDoAQgXMAA#v=onepage&q=Punjabi%20dialects%20University%2C%20Patiala%2C%20State%20of%20Punjab&f=false
  18. ^ https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=CQtkAAAAMAAJ&q=saraiki+dialect&dq=saraiki+dialect&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj0jPTEldrQAhXCVxQKHYZ0BlM4FBDoAQgfMAI
  19. ^ https://www.thenewstribe.com/2012/01/16/major-punjabi-dialects/
  20. ^ https://sikhchic.com/history/mother_tongue_the_many_dialects_of_punjabi
  21. ^ https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=gIBw8LvMqYIC&pg=PT60&dq=saraiki+dialect&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj0jPTEldrQAhXCVxQKHYZ0BlM4FBDoAQgxMAY#v=onepage&q=saraiki%20dialect&f=false
  22. ^ Rahman 1995, p. 16: "Many consider that Siraiki is a dialect of Punjabi, whereas the Nationalist Siraikis call it a language in its own right."; Shackle n.d.: "it has come to be increasingly recognized internationally as a language in its own right, although this claim continues to be disputed by many Punjabi speakers who regard it as a dialect of Punjabi"; Lewis, Simons & Fennig 2016: " Until recently it was considered a dialect of Panjabi."; Masica (1991, p. 443) defines Saraiki as a "new literary language"; see also Shackle (2003, pp. 585–86)
  23. ^ a b Rahman 1995, p. 16.
  24. ^ a b Shackle 2015.
  25. ^ Shackle 1977, p. 389.
  26. ^ Lewis, Simons & Fennig 2016.
  27. ^ This is the grouping in Wagha (1997, pp. 229–31), which laregely coincides with that in Shackle (1976, pp. 5–8).
  28. ^ Masica 1991, p. 426.
  29. ^ Grierson 1919, pp. 239ff.


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).