Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:45, 3 December 2014

Miscellaneous

Notes

References

Welcome

Hello, Nawabmalhi! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 The five pillars of Misplaced Pages • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

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

I have reported you to Misplaced Pages as per the above

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

Nawabmalhi, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Nawabmalhi! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Misplaced Pages and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the TeahouseThis message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

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

Talkback

Faizan 16:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

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

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. 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)

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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.--Nawabmalhi (talk):

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 Misplaced Pages 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:

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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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:

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 Misplaced Pages's quality standards. (November 2009)

You Can't Delete Verifiable Refrences ...End Of

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, 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:

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 Misplaced Pages'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

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 (talk • contribs)

First of All, on Misplaced Pages and everywhere else (other than Pakistan) Ahmadis are considered Muslim. -- This in not a matter of debate on Misplaced Pages.

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 Misplaced Pages. See WP:BP

You should read:

• Ahmadiyya
• Ahmadiyya Muslim Community
• Ahmadis in Pakistan

Misplaced Pages is for open minded people willing to learn and share.

Chowk.com

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

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages 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

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

Dear Sir:

Recently you have made misleading edits that constitute vandalism on the "Barlas" page on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages and ask them to ban you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jebenoyon (talk • contribs) 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages 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

References are not specific and do not meet Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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

With reference to your edit summary, did you verify the sources when you made this edit? 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:

• http://nativepakistan.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Rare-newspaper-about-Pakistan-The-Australian-newspaper-14-September-1965-edition.-Pakistan-wins-tank-battle-Rare-newspapers.jpg

While looking through the archives I found a aditional reference from Canberra Times talking about the battle (talks of Pakistani Victory):

• http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/105862237?searchTerm=pakistani%20tank%20victory&searchLimits=l-decade=196
  

--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 (Talk • Contributions • Log) 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 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 (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	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

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

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/Talk:Rabwah#Rabwah_Times. Sohebbasharat (talk) 10:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages 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

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

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)

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).