User talk:NadirAli/Archive 7

The Force is not magic

Just because someone uses the word "energy" doesn't mean they aren't talking about magic. Most people who use the word "energy" don't know what energy is. Just look at how New Agers use it. Serendi ^pod ous 13:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Serendipodous: Telekinesis is a common theme in science fiction. See X-Men or the Outer Limits as examples. Also check the commentaries on Ewoks: Caravan of Courage or Ewoks: Battle for Endor. These sci-fi fantasy films where their supernatural elements are distinguished from the force.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The boundary between scifi and fantasy is blurry; superhero stories in particular owe more to Samson and Hercules than they do to HG Wells or Jules Verne. Serendi ^pod ous 17:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Serendipodous:, I'm not sure I agree about the boundary, but I agree more or less on the superhero part taking inspirations from fantasy. Thor is right out of that era. As in Thor (Marvel comics).--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask a favour?

Before you make another edit to Harry Potter influences and analogues, please watch this short Youtube video.

Also, your edits are shifting dangerously close to "How JK Rowling ripped off Star Wars," which is a fairly blatant POV. Serendi ^pod ous 13:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Serendipodous:, I did not change the text of the article, I simply updated the format of the references. All of them are reliably sourced. I'll watch the video. What exactly is your concern?--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly I want you to consider the Hero's Journey. I'm not trying to stand up for Harry Potter here, but if you were to bring up Hero's Journey elements in contrast to Star Wars, you could just as easily argue that Star Wars stole from The Lord of the Rings, or that Lord of the Rings stole from Beowulf, or that Beowulf stole from the Odyssey, or that the Odyssey stole from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Serendi ^pod ous 17:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Serendipodous:, I looked at the video and learned nothing new. The hero's journey is something I'm familiar with and a hero with a thousand faces too. It's already mentioned that Star Wars is inspired by King Arthur, Bewulf and Lord of the Rings. I'm not familiar with Bewulf and only vaguely familiar with Lord of the Rings, but it's borrowings are listed. As long as everything is reliably sourced, I still don't see what the issue is.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're a really confused person

You just are. First you delete Arabized from Urdu. The YOU say, that "Oh it is Arabized, but it's via the Persianization—well some parts of it". LOL RaviVery (talk) 00:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC) RaviVery (talk) 00:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you are trying to get at. It did come via Persian and is simply a result of Persianization.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is Arabised. Get that thru your head. RaviVery (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC) RaviVery (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sindhi is Arab not Urdu which is from Persian.inspector (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Inspector123:, to learn about Urdu-Hindi (Hindustani) see Indo-Aryan languages. To learn about Persian see Iranic languages and to learn about both see Indo-Iranic languages. For Arabic see Semitic languages.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Pakistan Barnstar of National Merit
		Thanks, it's always great to receive recognition from veterans like yourself. I'd like to reciprocate likewise, in appreciation of all your efforts to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pakistan now and over the past decade! Mar4d (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Language isolate speakers has been nominated for discussion

Category:Language isolate speakers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yo

Yo man could you go over to the Al-Khalid tank and talk page and clear up all the confusion over there.

Thank you for messaging. Although I'm not too big of a military buff (I am interested in paramilitaries & police forces though), I'll have a look later on.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References needing double checking

^[1]^[2]

References

^ A Geography of Hindustan, Ancient and Modern, American Ceylon Mission, 1843.
^ chambers's encyclopaedia: a dictionary of universal knowledge for the people. 1878. p. 537.

PIA template

I've created a navigation box for PIA at Template:Pakistan International Airlines. I've added the most suitable pic I could find, however feel free to suggest or replace with any better images you might know of. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 06:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Mar4d:, thank you for this message. The previous image, while excellent in quality was of the Airbus 310-300, which is no longer in use with PIA. But that's not the reason I replaced it. The image was already in use elsewhere. I tend to avoid recycling images. But because this is a template and not an article, I am okay with replacing the older image. Feel free to add it back in if you wish. It was a great choice by the way.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NadirAli: Thanks for your input, I appreciate it :) I'm not much of an expert on aviation, so was having a tough time locating good aircraft pics on Commons. I seem to like this image especially as it captures the entire aircraft as opposed to the previous one, which was slightly cropped. However, the one downside I guess is the dark/cloudy backdrop which seems to add too much contrast. If you know of any clear, sky-blue pics, I'd love to see them. What I have in mind are like the ones used on Template:Royal Brunei Airlines, Template:Emirates Group, Template:Garuda Indonesia, Template:Malaysia Airlines etc. Thanks for your help regardless! Mar4d (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should've looked a little harder. This category has some good ones. Mar4d (talk) 04:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Mar4d:, darn I was too ignorant. A brighter one was right next to it. I'm replacing it now.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Mar4d:, I replaced it with another file, almost identical, but this pic is slightly brighter and not in use anywhere else. Have a look when you can to see if it's okay.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfect, thanks! Mar4d (talk) 09:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Mar4d:, on a separate topic, has there been an article created for the recent riots in Islamabad/Rawalpindi yet? I'm referring to the one that led to Zahid Hamid's resignation. If not I'm considering writing it, just hoping to have the time for it given my current circumstances outside of Wiki.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, see 2017 Tehreek-e-Labaik protest. Mar4d (talk) 09:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the link. I've done a couple of edits there. Nothing more seems to be needed at this time.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, NadirAli. 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]

ARBIPA sanctions reminder

Hi NadirAli, you are perfectly aware of the ARBIPA sanctions. I would appreciate if you exercise more caution in your talk page discussions and refrain from misrepresenting facts and situations. For example, in this post, you have claimed that Shankar and Raghavan are undue, that they are non-independent and non-HISTRS. None of this has been established. The only thing that was agreed that the particular article of Shankar should be given less WEIGHT because his article does not have any citations (yet). You should not claim any more than that without justification and evidence.

The entire talk page section called Talk:Kashmir conflict#NadirAli edits is raising various objections to your edits, none of which you have answered. Your first task should be to justify your edits, and answer the objections that have been raised. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya, you know very well that I have not edited the article in a number of days. I've just stuck to the talk page although I don't see what this whole commotion is all about. Let's confine the discussion to the talk page and not spin it off to my talk page.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PIA Dublin

DUB was never served, PiA sometimes lists destinations they offer onward connections to but do not serve. inspector (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to their website that I surveyed over a decade ago, Dublin was on the list. Technical stops are not included in an airline's destination list and PIA did a number of technical stops including Cyprus, but I don't think this would be included in their destination list on their website, but Dublin was. I think it's fair to say it was a former destination prior to competition by Gulf careers--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know PIA routes inside out, it was never served in any manner. Website also listed Da Nang bck then.inspector (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Inspector123:, I clearly remember it listed on their website, but it doesn't matter anymore.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing on Poverty in Pakistan and Women in Pakistan

Hi there I had wanted to ask you if you could kindly assist me on some Indian pov pushing on article on Poverty in Pakistan a Indian user under a fake name called Arslan274 made this edit along with a few others on poverty in Pakistan page [1] he intentionally removed date which shows Pakistan is doing better than Bangladesh and India and then someone replaced it with Pakistan is falling behind Bangladesh. Coule you please readd the data? Plenty of Indian poverty articles use sources from 2011 so its not an excuse to blank information.

Also on Women in Pakistan adamberged readded pov text to the article we are being overwhelmed by pov pushers from India but can you please assist just once? Take care. 82.132.222.152 (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll have a look when I have time. Thank you for messaging.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To editor 82.132.222.152:, you sent me a diff but I cannot see it anywhere in the article history. Can you pull this out with the proper link. Like maybe the prev?--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Army article 1965 section contains Indian claims but the Indian army page contains only Indian claims

Hi user Ali I just noticed the 1965 subsection of the Pakistan army page has Indian claims of 471 tanks while the Indian army page has ZERO pakistani claims of 500 tanks nor does it contain neutral sources which state Pakistan lost 200 or 300 tanks. Please I would like someone to tell this to user Adamberger80 who seems to think the Indian Army page should only contain Indian sources but the Pakistani army page should cater for Indian claims also this double standard should not be allowed. Hranday8 (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Hranday8:, thank you for your concerns. We are currently dealing with similar issues article after article and it'll be some time before I or anyone else can deal with this. I would recommend you have a look at this page and see if you can report your concerns here and over here, but please ensure to provide proper diffs and any other relevant evidence when filing the report, otherwise it's unlikely to be accepted.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who consume almond milk has been nominated for discussion

Category:Wikipedians who consume almond milk, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. —swpb^{T go beyond} 16:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use Ecosia has been nominated for discussion

Category:Wikipedians who use Ecosia, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. VegaDark (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek: Phase II (fan series) has been nominated for discussion

Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek: Phase II (fan series), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. VegaDark (talk) 05:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

During a series of edits you made to Paramilitary, you added an image titled; "Emergency response team RCMP". This is actually a picture of toy army dolls (I believe they're called "One Sixth Warriors"). This is to inform you that I have since removed that image and replaced it with an image of an actual police tactical unit. - ^theWOLFchild 17:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Thewolfchild:, okay let me have a look. I don't think that's the case, but let me review it.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DRN notice

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Kashmir conflict#Nimitz replacement".The discussion is about the topic Kashmir conflict. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Kautilya3 (talk) 11:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya, did you have to bring this up now...? Sigh, I'll respond a little later.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. —MBL ^Talk 17:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You would be helpful to point out the alleged "original research" edit by edit. But instead you restored a lot of original research.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Airbnb

I am seeing it says 200,000,000 members is there a source for this? I am seeing 44.8 million users in 2016 based on this source. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 16:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Valoem: then change it accordingly to that source. Until a better source comes, stick to that one. Let me know if you need assistance. For today (perhaps tomorrow) I won't be available.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Bangladesh–Pakistan relations does not have an edit summary. 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 → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! —MBL ^Talk 08:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note

The undo button exists for a purpose.You don't need to reply to random nonsense like this.~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need your help on Tarek Fatah support for Baloch insurgents

Hi I wanted to ask you if you could possibly help a section on the article on Tarek Fatah his view section needs to show that he openly supports the separation of Balochistan from Pakistan and his support for militancy there is a crucial bit missing from the section. Its been protected so I cannot edit so could you add it for me ? Thanks. 2A02:C7D:151D:D100:6DC2:BB5:3713:E898 (talk) 11:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. I will add it to his biography as soon as I can find reliable sources.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done I found only one source, but I'm sure I can dig out more later.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arif Nizami, Azhar Abbas (journalist)

Arif Nizami, Azhar Abbas (journalist) are up for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azhar Abbas (journalist) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arif Nizami. Can you please help in improving these articles and defect deletion attempt.--Spasage (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Spasage:

Done--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks.

To editor Spasage: see the template I added on the talk page of those articles. They should help you expand them.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

tag

Please look into this article [2] which has more than 20 citations including reliable ones such as Business Recorder, Dawn, Express Tribune, BBC which are leading newspaper dailys. If there are one or two unrealiable sources or there as mentioned in the tags by a user who hasnt replied to on the page's talk page ever since applyinh these tags, the tags should be specifically placed at specific places where the problem lies. To generalise the whole article by placing tags on top of the article affects the credibility of the whole article itself which is unfair (45.116.232.56 (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Also please label reference number 18 and 28 on the page. Thanks (45.116.232.56 (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Alright, I will do it. Give me a while to look it over and other edits that I need to take care of.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source below:

Indian involvement in Balochistan

Hi I came across this source:[3] it states the RSS is supporting separatists in balochistan could you add this to the Indian involvement section in the Balochistan insurgency section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.231.17 (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will take a look tomorrow hopefully. Right now I am a little busy with little time to spare and am putting input into another article, so I'll need a little while before checking that article. Thanks for your patience.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to WikiProject Portals

The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.

You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.

There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.

Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.

It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.

The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.

A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

Let's do this.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 10:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WikikiProject banners

Regarding this, it's not up to you to decide which articles get tagged with WP:LAW. It's rather up to that WikiProject to set out its scope. I'll ask there about the tag being used at the Child sexual abuse talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are indefinitely banned from all edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan, broadly construed. You are warned that any further disruption or testing of the edges of the ban will be met with either an indefinite topic ban from all topics related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan or an indefinite block, without further warning.

You have been sanctioned per this AE discussion.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please go to WP:TBAN and read the information there to see what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period, to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal against the imposition of the ban, see WP:AC/DS#sanctions.appeals which explains the ways in which you may appeal. Additionally, you may ask for this sanction to be removed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard after six months of positive contributions to Wikipedia. GoldenRing (talk) 08:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification and Amendment

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_India-Pakistan regarding the ARE decision that affected you. — MapSGV (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To editor MapSGV: thank you, i'll have a look later.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA sanctions reminder 2

Dear NadirAli, you are already under an ARBIPA sanction. So I am surprised to see you edit-warring already. Did you read my edit summary?

You say "in my view the "hidden user" is right, all content needs to be sourced, this pruned WP:OR-free version looks much better organized". "Your view", as such, should be expressed on the talk page, and you need to achieve WP:CONSENSUS before trying reinstate the reverted edit of a blocked user.

I suggest you self-revert and open a talk page discussion. Otherwise, I will ask GoldenRing to take a look at this conduct. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One revert (outside the scope of the topic ban and almost 3 weeks after the last activity on that page) that concerns removal of content violating WP:OR and failing WP:V is not edit warring. I also don't see evidence that this "hidden user" is a blocked user. GoldenRing (talk · contribs) I suggest you take a look at this and try calming things down before it can escalate between these two. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 09:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josephus, you are yourself under ARBIPA sanction, and your showing up here itself amounts to "escalation". I suggest you withdraw.

NadirAli, I am still waiting for you to action my request. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Kautilya3:, you also express views on article talk pages and make edits just because you like it, when most sources disagree with it. I think it's best to leave what is reliably sourced as per policy over what one personally likes. There is no policy against reverting to a blocked users edits; especially if it's reliably sourced over original research. You should support the current edit, not fight against it.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the edit summary with which I reinstated the content, explicitly linked above? If so, what is your response to it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Later Kautilya, later. I think it is better to spend our time being productive rather than arguing over something not worth it, at least for the moment.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, you refuse to reinstate 19,000 bytes of long-standing content that you deleted, and you refuse to answer questions? This is your idea of being "productive"? I don't get it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, if you feel that the 19,000 bytes of "longstanding" unsourced content are so necessary you can try finding sources to support them. After all policy is that there is a WP:BURDEN on the one who restores[4] unverifiable content to find the sources for them. I suggest you start looking for sources for those 19,000 bytes of unsourced content. CambridgeBayWeather, I think you need to take a look at this because GoldenRing hasn't stepped in yet and this is just getting out of hand. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the material was unsourced but some appears to have sources. Rather than war over it why not add it to Talk:Islam in Pakistan and discuss it bit by bit? JosephusOfJerusalem, Kautilya3. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you CambridgeBayWeather. I will await these users at Talk:Islam in Pakistan. Lets hope they can bring sources. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed. Discussion is all that I was asking for, whereas these two editors are acting as if it is a cut-and-dried issue.

An unregistered editor that reinstated the material has said, as early as 18 April, The links to the main articles are listed. It is a summary of them as they are directly relevant to Islam's history in Pakistan.

In my own reinstatement, I said the deleted content has plenty of citations and main article links; if you have specific concerns, please raise them on the talk page or tag them for citations).

Yet these concerns have been ignored by these two editors. Also ignored is the admonition at WP:V,

When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable

and the footnote explanation:

For all of these reasons, it is advisable to communicate clearly that you have a considered reason to believe that the material in question cannot be verified.

What considered reasons can there possibly be for disbelieving well-known facts of history which are covered in detail in the corresponding main articles? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much

The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 09:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT

[1] A Geography of Hindustan, Ancient and Modern, American Ceylon Mission, 1843.

[2] chambers's encyclopaedia: a dictionary of universal knowledge for the people. 1878. p. 537.

[1]

[2]