User talk:Noor Aalam

Welcome

Welcome! Hello, Noor Aalam, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Anupam^Talk 03:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did user:Freedom skies say?

Hi, IP198, Where did user:Freedom skies say that you were my sockpuppet or vice-versa? At least on this page s/he is being only being coy and not naming anyone. No worries. If s/he has actually made this accusation somewhere, I'll be happy to challenge her/him to a check user ID check and have the loser donate $200 to Wikimedia foundation! Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is "hindowakans?" (ie. the WP link)? Please provide links for both pages? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait and watch then

Very suggestive; speaking things like "I do have high intelligence" and blanking discussion page at the first hint of allegations of unexplained expertise. Having multiple IPs at one's disposal is not uncommon. I'll wait and watch. My opinion, the overlaps will stop and the editing on other topics will continue. The pattern and nature of the edits will be similar though. The initial overlap seems to be good enough for future references though. _{Freedom skies| talk} 18:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be using the edits on Iqbal for references on probable future ocassions. _{Freedom skies| talk} 19:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pathani suit

IP, I've been reading, in English, about clothing in South Asia and Afghanistan, for a long time. I had never heard of "Pathani suit" until you introduced the term. I googled for "Punjabi suit" (with the quotes -- that's important) and got 21,600 hits. I googled for "Pathani suit" and got 2,260 hits, most of which were tailor shops.

You may want English-speakers to adopt that term, but it simply isn't a common English term. If I were to google in Urdu, I might get a different result. Except that I only know a few words of Urdu :) and can't type in Nastaliq.

I'm sick and tired of Afghan-Pashtun-Indo-Pak nationalist squabbles being carried on over a simple piece of clothing. I wear the darn outfit and I'm not any of the above. The squabbles should be moved to a separate section of the article and OUT of the header. Zora 21:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pathani suit doesn't get equal billing with Punjabi suit because it isn't as common in English. The lead para talks about the names that an English-speaking reader might encounter. If they won't ever hear the name, there's no need to mention it.

You may feel strongly that Pathans are just as important as Punjabis, but that won't change the English language. As for assuming that I hate Pakistanis and Afghans ... that's nuts. Sheesh. I get Indian editors accusing me of being Pakistani and Pakistani editors accusing me of being anti-Pakistani. Zora 22:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

IP98, you want to add your "communal" comments to the sari article because you know that they're correct and everyone in Pakistan agrees with you. This is a pattern. You give no references, no quotes, nothing is verifiable, but you're sure that you're right and everyone agrees with you. But anyone can claim that! I argue all the time with Hindutvadis who claim that all Hindus agree with them. They also claim to be speaking for millions of people.

We can't write an encyclopedia that way. We do have a great many statements that aren't properly cited or verified but we should be trying to convert them into verified statements.

I'm going to edit down your comments again. If you want to add that "information", get a quote from a reliable source. If the source is in Urdu, give the quote in the original and then a translation, so that other editors can check to be sure that your translation is correct.

BTW, much of the rest of the sari article needs to be verified the same way. I think I could do a lot of it from my personal copy of Chantal Boulanger's book, which I recently purchases. I just haven't had time. Zora 20:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar

Please don't remove templates before discussing on talk pages. This is against policy. If I am wrong and it has been discussed somewhere, please re-revert it with giving the appropriate link to Talk:Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, failure of which will result in reversion.--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢(I prefer replying to each other's talk pages.) 20:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The templates represent who want to contribute, and nothing else. Pakistani template was put by Pakistani editors, who wanted to add the article to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan and collaborate. If they decide to remove it, they are free to do so. Whether he was an Indian or Pakistani is not determined by such templates, but what is mentioned in the article.--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢(I prefer replying to each other's talk pages.) 01:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Pashtun

Hello IP198, I've noticed your contributions to Pashtun related articles. I would like to invite you to join WikiProject Pashtun by adding your name here. Please consider joining if you would like. With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your'e quite welcome dear! I understand your time constraint and will be happy to discuss major changes in Pashtun-related articles with you. I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors at Wikipedia. With warm regards, Anupam^Talk 00:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Pakistan

Hi IP198, I've been adding text and pictures to the History of Pakistan, which, I know, you've contributed to before. Could you take a look at my post: Two Pages?? Would be great to get your feedback. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors, as you did here: Talk:History of India. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. . And ohh.. btw, this is what I'm talking about. Cheers and happy Ugadi :) Sarvagnya 23:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wiki Policy

Hmm, the Wiki is too PC. Nevertheless, I respect its rules so thanks for bringing that to my notice. I will let your changes stand and modify the articles in keeping with the MoS. Max ^{- You were saying?} 15:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the terrorism template

Hello IP198,
It seems we have a disagreement on our hands about whether to link the terrorism template to Terrorism in India or not. Allow me put forth my arguments, and pardon me if I sound antagonistic. I don't mean to. Your objection to qualifying a group as "terrorist" was acknowledged, but objecting to linking to a valid Wikipedia article just because it contains the word "terrorism" seems to stretch it too far. I see no violations of wiki policy in linking to an article that is relevant to the groups mentioned on the template. Please take a look at the Al-Qaeda page. There is a template about War on Terrorism at the end. Will you object to using that too?

Would be interested to know your views. Regards, Max ^{- You were saying?} 17:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP198,

Thanks for your response (and for not reverting the template :-)). You said, Terrorist commit terrorism, not militants. Going by your logic, there is no terrorism in the world, only militant resistance and "freedom struggle". That's fine, you're entitled to your personal opinion, but evidently the countries that have declared the organizations in question as terrorist groups do not share your point of view. Also, unfortunately, no independent, reliable source describes the activities of LeT and JeM as actions of a "freedom struggle" so you cannot hope to create an article by that name and link to it from the template.

As an aside, articles such as Terrorism in India, Terrorism in the United Kingdom, Terrorism in the United States or even Terrorism in Pakistan have the word "terrorism" in their titles for a reason. If they were against wiki policy, these articles would certainly have been renamed by now. Anyway, the bottom line is that I have linked to a legitimate article with an accepted title that is completely relevant to the template in question. That's all. There's no hidden agenda behind it. I daresay that you may be reading a little too much into the matter, but I can see where you're coming from so I don't blame you.

I would be glad to hear what WP:VP has to say. I would be interested in hearing comments from other editors.

Thanks for your time, Max ^{- You were saying?} 19:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting it on WP:VP. Let's see what the community has to say. I will respect consensus too. Max ^{- You were saying?} 06:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, no one seems to have had an opinion about this, so yeah, you can take the post off VP.

Coming to your suggestion about another template, I'm not comfortable linking to the category namespace from a template. All templates I've seen link to specific articles in the main namespace about the subject in question. Plus, if we create a separate template for militant groups in J&K, there's always the article on Terrorism in Kashmir to link it to :-)

In any case, let's not go through the hassle of preparing another template and then editing relevant articles to put it there. Instead, I propose a compromise. For the time being, let's remove the link on the template and rename the title to Organizations listed as terrorist groups in India. I will try to get more comments and information from other places (e.g. helpdesk) about how wiki policy should be interpreted regarding the Terrorism in India link. I will let you know what I find. If you agree with the temporary solution, please go ahead and edit the template. Thanks, Max ^{- You were saying?} 07:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal looks interesting, but I have a couple of concerns. First, won't a separate template for organizations in Kashmir be too small? The current template has only 5 or 6 names listed under Kashmir. A small template with a big title will look a bit uneven. Second, I think it might be kinda klutzy to link each word to a different article, and the reader may end up confused. For example, you suggested linking "organizations" to Kashmir conflict but the word and the linked article do not seem related in any way.

I'm also curious as to why you agree to link to Terrorism in Kashmir in your proposed template, but object to linking to Terrorism in India in the current one :-)

I agree with you that some of the organizations in the current template are not active but they were a formidable threat when they were active, and are still are banned as terrorist groups. As for the names that don't have links (groups from North-East India), someone can at least start a stub about them and then we can link to them from the template. I'll see what I can do about this, but unfortunately I don't have much time to spend on the wiki nowadays.

My opinion is that we should go ahead with the current template for the time being and modify the title according to our consensus. That said, I'm not totally averse to your idea of a Kashmir template, but maybe you can create it as a rough draft in your user area first (e.g. in User:IP198\Kashmir_Template) and we can see how it looks. Does this sound okay?

Thanks, Max ^{- You were saying?} 19:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Comment

Hello IP198. Thanks for your comment on my talk page. My edit which changed Hindi to Hindustani was entirely appropriate because the point of the paragraph is to show that words in the Hindi-Urdu (Hindustani) language show some variability in pronunciation. In Lucknow or Karachi, for example, the word will be pronouced as shalwar whereas in Amritsar, the word may be pronouced as salwar. The paragraph is basically conveying the point that Hindustani words may be pronounced differently if one is speaking towards the Urdu or towards the Hindi. Regarding the Salwar Kameez reference: The link no where claims that the shalwar kameez originiated in North India but only says that is is popular there, especially in the Punjab region. As a result, I feel that there is no need to remove the reference as it appropriately buttresses the preceding statement and is useful in providing information on the dress. As a result, I have restored the reference although I am open to more discussion on the topic. Thanks once again for bringing the issue up. I highly appreciate you for it. With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a second look at the reference, I see where your'e coming from. Since the article primarily concerns the presence of the Shalwar Kameez in India, I think that it is trying to communicate the fact that after the Shalwar Kameez was introduced in Northern India, it spread to other parts of the country. However, I could be wrong. Your valuable comments would be highly appreciated. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 03:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding my point regarding the English spelling section. I will not mind if you change Hindustani to Hindi-Urdu which is equally an acceptable academic term. In my opinion, the mentioning of Punjabi suit should be in the introduction as it is a common term for the dress. After reading the reference you kindly provided, I also feel that Pathani suit should be in the introduction as well. However, if you still disagree, I will not mind if you move the terms to another section of the article. Thanks again, Anupam^Talk 19:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments. I have added the additional term in the introduction with the reference you provided me. If Fowler&fowler still objects to this consensus, he can discuss the issue with us further. In my opinion, they are both notable terms and deserve a place there. You can go ahead and make the change in the language term under the English spelling section if you would like. Thanks again, Anupam^Talk 20:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Pakistan for FAC?

Hi IP198, I was wondering if we should make a push towards making the History of Pakistan article an FAC. It still needs a lot of work: it needs to be pruned, the post-1947 history needs to be cleaned up, etc. but I don't see any reason why we can't work towards FA status. What do you think? Who are some other people who have worked on that page? User Tombseye comes to mind. Any others you can suggest? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunni Prejudice

Sunnis are recognised a mile away. No one is as prejudiced (not to mention corrupt) like them in the world. Examples are; Sunni majority countries like Paki Sunnistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria etc. All are among the most corrupt and most prejudicial societies in the world. This is exactly in line with the teachings of terrorist Sunni Mullahs and their terrorist Sunni religion. Guess which country exports the most terrorism to the world? Sunni majority Paki Sunnistan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.243.211.101 (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Now that you got that off your chest, why dont you work on work on articles dealing with the persecution of Ahmadis. Their is plenty of information available on this topic. Just make sure you follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. IP198 15:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible to do while you Sunnis are muscling in on everything your own POV just like in real life specially Ragib, you and WebKami. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.243.114.105 (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I dont know what i did to you, but if you feel strongly about this i suggest you file a complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. btw is their any reason why you reverted me in this article Zhob. Surely that article had nothing to do with anti-Ahmadi prejudice. IP198 15:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think I would rv your POV edits. Wiki Admins are all too busy already.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.243.114.105 (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I think this the problem. By behaving like a vandal, you allow others not only to revert your edits but also potentially insert their own pov into the articles. What will you accomplish by behaving like a troll?IP198 16:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All POV has come from Sunnis who are used to railroading everyone else in their countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh and other Sunnis majority countries. They are not comfortable with letting others show the independent picture that presents Sunnis in the correct light i.e. the atrocities Sunnis have committed and continue to commit against non-Sunnis; Shias, Ahmadis, Hindus, Christian and even Sunni women - from day one. Just an example of what Sunnis are capable of doing; Five men have been jailed for life for a UK bomb plot linked to al-Qaeda that could have killed hundreds of people. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6195914.stm).

btw Osma bin Laden and Al-Qaida are all Sunnis and we all know what they did to do the world. Not to mention all the Pakistani Sunnis that have been involved in all the atrocities al around the world. If Sunnis can terrorise, persecute and kill people in real life, vandalising Wiki articles and adding Sunni POV is nothing in comparison. You guys need to come out of this mentality that only your POV should rule. And don’t lecture on morality; everyone knows what Sunnis are capable of.