User talk:PohranicniStraze

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

A belated welcome![edit]

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm! Face-smile.svg

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, PohranicniStraze. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Shirt58 (talk) 03:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sayyid Article[edit]

In reply to your message. I am here to restore the original Sayyid article, which I am not quite happy to see you have quite vandalized and edited the article quite recently. But I forgive you. Please do not delete work from article but just add to it. It is NOTHING at all related to this Shia vs. Sunni, this is out of topic or question. We here to preserve not vandalise. Cheers, Yazd786. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yazd786 (talkcontribs) 05:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the word "vandalise". So do you have a citation or not?PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Anthony Wood[edit]

In the last quarter of last year you and I discussed the article "Thomas Aston (born 1480)" please take a look at the discussion on "Talk:Anthony Wood". -- PBS (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dear[edit]

Thanks for taking interest on DB related articles, making them more Wiki freindly.--Md iet (talk) 10:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse![edit]

Teahouse logo
Hello! PohranicniStraze, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! The herald 14:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Keep up the good work.. The herald 14:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

about the page Ali ibn Husayn Zayn al-Abidin[edit]

Dear PohranicniStraze, I did some changes on the page Ali ibn Husayn Zayn al-Abidin that were reverted by you. Unfortunately one of them was a mistake that I did Unintentionally when I work on the page. So, first of all, thank you for reversion my mistake! and then I want to say that the other edition was a quote from Ali ibn Husayn that I do not understand why you revert it?!

All the Best Pouyeh (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

-Hi Pouyeh, I saw the deletion and assumed it was vandalism, unfortunately the quote got cut as well. I see you've added the quote back in, so no harm done. Happy editing!PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The Islamic prophet[edit]

Hi-- The phrase "the Islamic prophet" before Muhammad's name is not an honorific. It's a common way to distinguish him from other people by that name. Eperoton (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


Hi User:PohranicniStraze, can you help me with a fix to Maiorana please? I know what's wrong, but am not best at fixing it, basically some surnames are in quote marks ("") and other are in italics. User:Mild Bill Hiccup sorted this out on France (name) article (his fix [1], compared to my previous version [2]), but won't help me here. Also I don't know where links are appropriate, maybe they are being overused on Maiorana? Please let me know what you think, cheers.--Theo Mandela (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:PohranicniStraze for taking time out to edit Maiorana appreciate it. Are you alright to remove sources [1] and [4] and the information relating to them please? As they are unreliable and a removal won't be challenged. Cheers, --Theo Mandela (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


Hi User:PohranicniStraze, on Maiorana, where it says "a dialectic term for a type oregano", is that a mistake? Should it be "type of oregano" instead? I'm not sure, let me know what you think please, thanks.--Theo Mandela (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Alavi Bohras[edit]

Hello Editor,

With best hope and great day,

Sir, you have removed honorific from "Alavi Bohras". Please suggest me the correct way so that I edit accordingly as I (and my Team) am the creator and contributor of this page.

Thanks. --TeamAlavi (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Sir, You have removed honorific, How could I know from where it was removed. Please suggest.

Thanks. --NoorAlavi (talk) 15:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Hello! Regarding your question on my edits to Alavi Bohras, I was applying the Wikipedia manual of style recommendations for religious honorifics. The general guidelines for religious titles can be found at WP:NCCL, and the specific ones for Muslim honorifics are at WP:PBUH. Basically, honorifics such as PBUH, RA, AS, SWT, and similar are not normally used except where they are part of quotations. You can see the exact changes made to the article using the prev button in the history tab of the page. Hope this information is helpful to you. Best wishes and happy editing!PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Sir, On the page Haatim Zakiyuddin, you have removed the reference "Righty-guided divine mission propagated right from the first prophet of Islam Adam Safiyullaah till the Last Day of Judgement. It is and will remain eternal before the creation of this world and after its destruction" from Da'wat e Haadiyah. Sir, could you please explain it. Also thanks for reshuffling the paras.

Also, before some time, there were images of manuscripts on the same page. I had requested its author and he had emailed on on 22nd July and received the Ticket#: 2017072210009254 for giving me copyright. But nothing has happened sice then.

Please help me out to get that images again.

Thanx. --NoorAlavi (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


I have come across a page which is about the 29th Da'i of Dawoodi Bohras during whose time split occurred regarding the succession issue and it resulted into two Bohra factions, viz. Alavis and Dawoodis. In the above mentioned page, the sentence "Just for the sake of some money and properties in Ahmadabad, Alavi Bohras started following Ali as Dai al Mutlaq." is insulting and disrespectful. I request your kind attention and do the needful.

Regards/ --Theintellectual21 (talk) 07:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

That does seem like a pretty clear POV violation, at least without strong sourcing to back it. I removed the sentence in question.PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and best wishes. --Theintellectual21 (talk) 07:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello sir, I have created a gallery in Alavi Bohras page, but could not add new images. After uploading new ones it doesn't get displayed as a result it couldn't be fetched in the gallery. Please explain... Thanks.--NoorAlavi (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I can't be of any assistance with that. I am still a novice with working with images. You might want to ask an admin.PohranicniStraze (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (John Roper, 1st Baron Teynham) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating John Roper, 1st Baron Teynham, PohranicniStraze!

Wikipedia editor Justlettersandnumbers just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Nice work, I wish I saw more pages like this!

To reply, leave a comment on Justlettersandnumbers's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Ehsan Sehgal[edit]

Hello PS! Please take some time to see this self promoted stuff by User:Ehsan Sehgal here. I want your thoughts about sources he used to promote himself at Ehsan Sehgal doesn't comply with WP:V and WP:RS. I think it is a straight case for deletion as user has heavily edited that article with self crafted sources. Would be nice if you search some stuff. Thanks. :) Greenbörg (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Undoing bad edits[edit]

In a few places, I see you have removed content as uncited original research. Thanks for patrolling! But the content that you removed had replaced other content, rather than simply being added. Please check article-history to see if there is a previous version of the article that is better, so the result is not a loss of good content. See for example [3]. DMacks (talk) 02:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Good catch, I was focused on removing the OR and missed what they had removed.PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Deleting important content[edit]

I’ve added an important content to the page of (Ahl al-Bayt) but you’ve deleted them with no real reason. The content is related to the topic, useful, real and enriching the article. Besides, it is supported by the verses from the Holy Quran.

I hope to review what I’ve added and consider it as a useful addition in order to spread the enlightened knowledge - the main target of Wikipedia.

Samia (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, PohranicniStraze. 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)

When you don't look close enough...[edit]

That's what happens. You mistake IPs reverting vandalism for vandalism. Thanks for pointing it out for me. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball!Contribs 03:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Boomer Vial: What makes it really confusing is when the IP reverting vandalism is the same IP that did the vandalism in the first place! PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh, you're right. I assumed that was the one who originally added the false information. Looking over the revision history, I see that the IPv6 was adding the wrong information. Still, I'll keep the warnings off their talk page. If they keep up the behavior, which I don't think they will, we can just report them to AIV. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball!Contribs 04:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Rollback granted[edit]

Wikipedia Rollbacker.svg

Hi PohranicniStraze. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


Thanks for dealing with the Asian Media vandal. This situation is stressing me out. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hirohito shenanigans[edit]

Alright, this is getting nowhere. Can we rustle up an admin to block him? Zyc1174 chat? what I did 04:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Zyc1174: I've already dropped a notice on AIV, with no result so far - about to see about requesting semi-protection, maybe an admin will be monitoring that page. PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I've already added the semi-protection request here. Fingers crossed. You got that AIV link? Zyc1174 chat? what I did 04:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@Zyc1174: Thanks! The request is sitting in the top of the queue at AIV right now. Another of mine just got handled, so someone is working on the backlog. PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 Done @PohranicniStraze: Alright, praise the good man for locking the page down. Face-smile.svg Zyc1174 chat? what I did 04:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

This is Japanese Sincerity. According to Akira fujiwara in Japanese, on August 6, 1937, deputy minister of Military of Japan notified of Japanese Troops in Shanghai that the army's proposition to remove the constraints of international law on the treatment of Chinese prisoners. The Emperor has no relation with the notification. I want to show the fact.Japanese sincerity (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Japanese sincerity: Hello, and thanks for the response! Just so I'm clear, are you arguing that Fujiwara did not make the claim stated in the article, or that he did make the claim but it is incorrect? And if the latter, are there some reliable sources that could be used as references? PohranicniStraze (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments! Honestly speaking, I am not a nationalist, however I want to show the facts. For example, in the web site of Chukiren, , Akira Fujiwara wrote one column about 2nd Japan-China War. In the column (sorry Japanese...) in the center of the column (五、残虐行為とその背景) you find the sentence, 第一に日本は、中国との戦争で国際法に違反し、大量の捕虜を不法に殺害したことを挙げなければならない。華北での戦闘が本格化した1937年8月5日、陸軍省は支那駐屯軍にたいして、この事変には国際法の戦争法規は適用しない、「俘虜」(捕虜の公用語)という名称は使うなという通牒を出した。この方針は、その後もずっと続けられた。このことは、現地の軍では、国際法は守らなくてもいい、捕虜は作るな、という方針だと受けとられたのである。 It means that in the mid of the battle in northern China, 5th August 1937, Ministry of Japanese army notified Japanese China Garrison Army of the agenda that the internatinal humanitarian law should not be applied in the war and any expression of POW should not be used.(華北での戦闘が本格化した1937年8月5日、陸軍省は支那駐屯軍にたいして、この事変には国際法の戦争法規は適用しない、「俘虜」(捕虜の公用語)という名称は使うなという通牒を出した。). Secondly, Emperor was responsible for the Military under the old Constitution, but Military system was divided into two, Ministry of army and General Staff Headquarters. Emperor was not responsible for Ministry of army and such a detailed notifivation was not ratified directly. The above mentioned reason, I show. Japanese sincerity (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Japanese sincerity:No worries, I know I edit a lot of pages that don't reflect my personal views (and shouldn't, in the interest of neutral point of view), and I think most editors understand that. I just reverted your initial edit because it was removing sourced content, and the Hirohito article has a recent history of that. However, if you have a reliable source that states otherwise, I don't see a problem with adding it to the article. I don't speak or read Japanese, so obviously I can't review the source provided, but there are plenty of people on WP who can. Since the edit may be contentious, you might want to post a section on the article's talk page, say what you are recommending, and then make the change (with source) on the article notated as "per talk page" - that way no editors should think you are just removing content without a reason. Thanks for the reply, and happy editing! PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Do I have to post "Talk" before editing or not? If it is better, I post. Japanese sincerity (talk) 13:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Both the Hague convention and chemical weapon were not authorized by the Emperor. The "specific orders (rinsanmei)" for the chemical weapon was Japanese Army's special order by using the name of the Emperor, because the Garison did not easily follow the orders of the Army HQ, during the 2nd Japan-China War. The Army used the name of the Emperor when it ordered, but of course, detailed ones among orders were not the direct decision or formal agreement of the Emperor at that time. I add more information about the old Japanese political sysytem. Under the old Constitution, the Emperor was positioned as a sacred one but also the monarch of the Constitutional Monarchy, who delegates the power to the Parliament and the Cabinet. Such a kind of contradictory system confused the Japanese politics and the position of the Emperor, in 1930s. Hirohito was earnet in the diplomatic harmony and often tried to stop the confclicts against China, according to "Showa Tenno Dokuhakuroku" (The memorandum of Hirohito's voices"), but at the same time the Emperor could not totally deny the miitary activities until the final stage of World War 2. Japanese sincerity (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I post the idea on "Talk" of HIROHITO.Japanese sincerity (talk) 12:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals.[edit]

Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals 2601:283:8380:2D95:F1E1:1F53:3F6B:EF80 (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Yes, but people who insert unrelated information (such as by adding the BTK Killer to the PTL Scandal) are, indeed, vandals. If you feel you're being victimized, feel free to follow the proper channels. Otherwise go troll somewhere else. PohranicniStraze (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


Hello PohranicniStraze, with this edit you have undone the deletion of mentioning the mistress of the present Thai King. I'm not shure about the policy about mistresses of politicians and royalty on en:Wikipedia, but this might cause problems for Wikipedia in Thailand. Blocking Wikipedia in Thailand has been done in the past for this kind of information. --FredTC (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

  • @FredTC: Hello, and thanks for the response! I am not sure on the policy either and will have to see what sort of precedent we have there, but I see royal mistresses mentioned in Charles, Prince of Wales and Albert II, Prince of Monaco, and plenty of political mistresses. I don't think we censor information because of government sensitivity to its politicians' extramarital adventures, but will bow to consensus if that is not the case. PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Elizabeth Holmes lead sentence[edit]

There have been discussions concerning the inclusion of fraud in the lead sentence of the article. IMHO, I believe it to be a violation of MOS:BLPLEAD, WP:LABEL, & WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Please see the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth Holmes#"Businesswoman"? & Talk:Elizabeth Holmes#Holmes as an inventor & as a fraud.

We do not use fraud in the first sentence Bernie Ebbers, Jeffrey Skilling, Kenneth Lay, & other articles about executives who have committed fraud. We use neutral language even in the first sentence of Adolph Hitler. Why would we do anything different for the Elizabeth Holmes article? Peaceray (talk) 03:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

  • @Peaceray:Hello! I thought I was moving towards a more neutral statement - if you look at the edit before mine, an IP had changed "inventor" to "scammer". I removed that language and consolidated the next sentence with it, since it seemed to combine the main things she is currently known for. But I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, my main intention was to remove the decidedly non-neutral "scammer" language added by the IP. Thanks for the feedback! PohranicniStraze (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that previous editor removed a verified statement with citations to reliable sources & introduced a contentious label. I think the correct course of action is to revert such edits rather than to overlook the biased removal of verified information. Peaceray (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)