Archives

1 2 3 4 5

Hello, Basawala. 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)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Urdu into Urdu alphabet. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replace the gallery if you must, but please don't misrepresent what WP:IG says, and quote that as your reason! Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment Johnbod. I suppose it was implicit, but we were in fact forming a consensus on how WP:IG applies to the Pakistan gallery. Specifically, regarding the condition in which a gallery section would be appropriate, i.e. "the images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject... Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made.", which we agreed was not met by the former gallery. So in fact, WP:IG plus our discussion was relevant to the change. If you create a relevant gallery as per the talk page, that would also be an edit based on WP:IG. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^тʌʟк 18:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough, but so many people quote IG as though it gives blanket encouragement for the removal of galleries without discussion, which it does not (I think I drafted parts of what you quote, years ago, though the policy as a whole is so often misused it needs re-writing). Apologies. Johnbod (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you mean. I indeed don't support blanket removal of galleries. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^тʌʟк 19:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to show up on my syntax highlighter gadget as broken syntax. I can't figure out what's wrong and the highlighter does mark variants of <br> in preference for <br/> as wrong sa well, which work though. Maybe it's nothing. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. I've modified it slightly; does it work now? ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^тʌʟк 15:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC) asda[reply]

I can only tell if you start a new discussion where you only have used your updated sig; so looking at this section, it seems fine. Your talk page link isn't working though and that's not good. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's because we're already on my talk page. :P I think everything is fine now but you can feel free to let me know otherwise, if you see something. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^тʌʟк 13:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On your talk page...of course...Now how did I forget that? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note as to why Chinese is there on the Kara-Khanid Khanate article - the Karakhanids had pretensions to be ruler of China, and styled themselves as Tamghaj Khan/Tabhghach Khan meaning ruler of China, and also used Malik al-Mashriq wa al-Sin meaning "King of the East and China" in their own coins - [1]. Part of the Karakhanid empire (such as the Kashgar) was considered Chinese territory by Muslim writers of the period (due to it being occupied by Tang China at one time). There is usually a good reason why something is there for a long time, and you should ask first. Hzh (talk) 12:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can move this to the talk page. And it looks like your edits there re Chinese are quite controversial, by the looks of the talk page. And this logic doesn't make sense- the lead should only contain relevant languages. One can wish to rule over a country but not to have anything to do with their language. We don't include all the Indian languages for English Empire, but Victoria was still the Empress of India. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^тʌʟк 14:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are talking about, there is no controversy about the Chinese name specifically (there were more arguments about Persian), and I did not add the Chinese name originally. You can reply to the talk page. Hzh (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would have tell you that given that the discussion is progress, a discussion you demanded, you editing the article without allowing the discussion to proceed to its conclusion is not considered appropriate, and I would ask that you desist from doing it. Hzh (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was barely relevant to the discussion at hand (which was mainly about Chinese), and given how clear WP:LEDE is.... ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^тʌʟк 01:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We always assume good faith in regard to contributor's edits, but if you are suggesting that your opening statement "I'm in favor of as few as possible. If the Kara-Khanids used Arabic script, there should just be one name in Arabic script that's historically valid, nothing else" does not apply to Persian, then we are getting close to the point where the assumption with regard to your edits may not be true, especially when Persian was specifically mentioned. Hzh (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:LEDE? My edits were based on the Manual of Style and were not controversial, per WP policy. Also, I interpreted your objection as only towards the Chinese part, which is what you initially only justified anyways; if you're also defending Persian in the lead, that's new to me. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^тʌʟк 16:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Either you don't understand the point you made yourself, or you are deliberately ignoring it. I can only defend which was deleted initially, which is the Chinese term, I only noticed that the Persian term had been removed as well, and the Persian term is clearly part of the discussion. Hzh (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also very confused by your mention of AGF. I did in fact make my edit based on "I'm in favor of as few as possible..." and WP:LEDE; you're the one who brought up the point that the Kara-Khanids didn't use that name at all, and plus, the names were all unsourced. Once again, despite your stewardship of the article, you still have the burden to demonstrate verifiability and notability. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^тʌʟк 16:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the Persian is part of the discussion "I'm in favor of as few as possible..." which is still in progress. I would request again that you undo the edit as it appears to be made in ignorance of the subject. I did not say "Kara-Khanids didn't use that name at all" (you appear to be inventing things I said), the term in Persian was a contemporaneous term. Hzh (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good source, international newspaper: http://indianexpress.com/article/research/how-bengali-became-an-official-language-in-sierra-leone-in-west-africa-international-mother-language-day-2017-4536551/

Want a US university source? Here: https://www.vanderbilt.edu/csls/lctlangs/bengali.php

Another source: http://www.daily-sun.com/printversion/details/114250/Bengali-as-international-language

You can google and find MANY sources. I don't know why you keep undoing my changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuadorko2 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Basawala. 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)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Daihaati Zabaan. Since you had some involvement with the Daihaati Zabaan redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. – Uanfala (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Basawala. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chinese langauge. Since you had some involvement with the Chinese langauge redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone makes history theft on this page and turns it into Iranian page. Persian was the last language in Kara-Khanids. They were talking Turkic and writing turkic in arabic and some persian letters.. only letters!!! ^[1] ~~ltequila~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltequila (talk • contribs) 21:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]