Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
![]() |
Hello! Rameshnta909,
you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the
Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us!
Pharaoh of the Wizards (
talk)
19:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
|
Hi. Regarding your edits to Angels & Demons:
If you going to contribute to an encyclopedia, you should have a grasp of basic writing skills. Thank you. Nightscream ( talk) 22:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
Sarath Fonseka, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been
reverted. Thank you.
Dl2000 (
talk)
22:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Welcome to the Teahouse Badge |
Awarded to editors who have introduced themselves at the
Wikipedia Teahouse. Guest editors with this badge show initiative and a great drive to
learn how to edit Wikipedia. | |
Welcome very welcome if you have questions,please feel free to drop me a line!
|
![]() |
Hi Rameshnta909! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
I reverted your recent deletion (twice) of material from Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions. We don't just delete questions and answers from there. They will be automatically archived in due course, but are available to help other readers. - David Biddulph ( talk) 17:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Transport in Sri Lanka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Western Province ( 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) 14:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kalpitiya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Escapade ( 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) 09:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as
vandalism, such as the edit at
Telangana, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can
discourage editors. Please read
Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. Making edits with a non-neutral point of view does not make an editor a vandal. Please be careful when using such a term.
NeilN
talk to me
16:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
As I said before, only admins can protect pages. Please make a request at WP:RFPP. -- NeilN talk to me 17:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Please refrain from changing
genres without providing a
source and without establishing a
consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own
point of view are considered
disruptive. Thank you. ---
CuCl2
(chat
spy
acquaint)
12:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Ramenshnta909. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your nod on my edits at the Chili Pepper page. I can see you are new to the encyclopedia and seeking to make good faith edits. A couple of brief pointers: one, citations do not float to fit an editor's sense of style. As a general rule they belong where the original user inserted them. Only if you verify that the entirety of content at the desired new location is supported by that at the website cited may one be moved, not following inferences drawn or commentary by the original or subsequent editors.
Secondly, one must be very judicious in the use of Wikipedia's Minor Edit feature. It is to be employed only when there is no reasonable chance of other editors objecting to the edit. To help, I'll give two examples apropos of the above instance: one, say you found two commas in a row, even in a cited passage, like so: "January,, 2014". It is reasonable to conclude the second is a typo (and cannot be confused with legitimate punctuation such as three periods in a row, an ellipse). It would be appropriate to delete the redundant one and characterize your edit as a minor one, labeled perhaps "Removed redundant comma", "Minor copyedit" (or "Minor ce"). Example #2: say you found a passage where a citation was inserted immediately ahead of a comma. It is convention in Wikipedia for cites to immediately follow punctuation, not precede, so it would be fair to move the comma ahead of the cite and label one's edit as a minor copyedit.
Obvious corrections in spelling (and not switches from say British English to American English spelling conventions) are also minor edits, as say correcting "elipse" to "ellipse". Going beyond such simple mechanical sorts of edits strays outside of consensus use of the Minor Edit option.
Good luck, and have fun. Wikiuser100 ( talk) 11:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
The {{unreferenced}} tag you placed on this page seems unneeded as it is list to direct reader's attention to notable subjects. Each entry in the list must have a page, so it is assumed each one has asserted notability. Cluttering a simple list page with citations/footnotes/refs seems counterproductive as there should not be any unsourced entry there anyway. -- Alexf (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear Rameshnta909, I am quite sure that I haven't written anything in favour of anybody and certainly I have not used Wikipedia to create hero image to someone. I am absolutely sure about the neutrality of the content that I have added to the page and I can defend it. Also, I believe that Wikipedia is not a stage to be used for defamatory comments about a person. Of course, when you write about politicians there will be sections to be written about controversies. But it was sad to see that it was not written in a neutral manner therefore I made the edits. Also I have seen your reversion of the word that I have used "clean chit", which has got innumerable sources to prove it. Therefore I am undoing the edits and please take it in the right sense. I am not any political supporter. Arunjith 04:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)mail2arunjith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mail2arunjith ( talk • contribs)
In a recent edit to the page
Preet Bharara, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to
respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.
For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.
In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Paris1127 ( talk) 17:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Redtigerxyz. I noticed that you recently removed some content from
Dashavatara without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please 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. Stop removing references and distorting content. There are many references stating Buddha as an avatar in the popular list. See
Talk:Dashavatara#Balarama_or_Buddha where this has been discussed. Also, see references in the article. DO NOT revert, unless you can prove by
WP:RS that the article is wrong.
Redtigerxyz
Talk
10:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at
Dashavatara, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. Please discuss on
Talk:Dashavatara and provide
WP:RS to prove your point. Please check the references and previous discussion threads. STOP removing references and do not revert before discussion.
Redtigerxyz
Talk
12:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did to
Oommen Chandy, without
verifying it by citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
DMacks (
talk)
18:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Maria_Sharapova#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_4_July_2014 and gain consensus for the addition. -- NeilN talk to me 15:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Maria Sharapova shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. NeilN talk to me 15:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
You recently reverted the name Parikshita to Parikshit saying that it is a Sanskritized name and common usage is Parikshit. However we here at Wikipedia don't go by common usage. Also you actually forget that the Sanskritzed names are commonly used. In whichever article Shiva is mentioned his name is written as Shiva although the common usage is Shiv. Also you forget the common usage of Arjuna and Yudhistra is Arjun and Yudhistir. However wherever they are mentioned on Wikipedia their Sanskritized names are used. Also the common usage is actually the Hindi version of their names. We can't just change a name because its usage is different in the majority language. Whenever names of Hindu deities or mythological characters are mentioned, Sanskritized names are mostly used. You can see that in all articles about Hnduism on Wikipedia. Therefore I ask you to stop disputing over this issue especially since Sanskritized names are the common usage on Wikipedia. Also I notice that you have been involved in edit warring with many users. You should stop edit warring and learn to let things go. We cannot always get we want on Wikipedia. MythoEditor ( talk) 18:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vivian Sibold is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivian Sibold until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Gaijin42 ( talk) 18:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
This was not vandalism, rather I think was explicit improvement. Please use an edit summary next time. Regards and Good Luck! Fai zan 21:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Vandalism is not to be tolerated at wikipedia please stop. Abu reiss ( talk) 22:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Did you see that we are discussing moving this to "Islamic State", which is what it calls itself as do many other sources> Why have ignored that discussion and started an RM to a different name? Dougweller ( talk) 16:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Hey, just letting you know I refactored the heading for the section you created. Especially on article talk pages, you want to avoid using a specific editors name in the section heading. We're supposed to focus on the edits, not the editor. Using their name can also come across as a challenge or hostility to the other user. Sometimes what you think is perfectly fine can contribute to a more difficult environment. By starting the section with a neutral heading you can help keep possible tensions to a minimum. Mentioning the editor by name in the text of the section is perfectly fine, just try to keep it out of the heading. Thanks! Ravensfire ( talk) 18:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Wifione
Message
18:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)I myself don't agree with the current version, see [4] and [5] these are still two better version. I think that it can be changed if you add some discussion to this section > Talk:Dashavatara#Buddha_is_not_a_Avtar. Bladesmulti ( talk) 14:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
First of all you need to know that his blood brothers name is Shabbir Sharif Rana where rana is a rajput name. [ [6]][ [7]]
[ [8]]
the reason that some people are confused about him to be a kashmiri is because alot of indian sources took sharif out of his name and nawaz name and thought both are lahori and kashmiri as mentioned here [ [9]].. but he is a rajput maybe a bhatti rajput from kashmir but is from gujrat in pakistan as is his brother and uncle.
On the other hand he is nephew of Raja Aziz Bhatti who is a Rajput as here [ [10]] and also from his name
Now this is just a misconception.. and i think you can clear it out atleast .. there is one source that is rediff for kashmiri but there are most sources regarding his brother and himself which state he is a rajput — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Saladin1987 (
talk •
contribs)
16:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
![]() |
Hello! Rameshnta909,
you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the
Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us!
Pharaoh of the Wizards (
talk)
19:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
|
Hi. Regarding your edits to Angels & Demons:
If you going to contribute to an encyclopedia, you should have a grasp of basic writing skills. Thank you. Nightscream ( talk) 22:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
Sarath Fonseka, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been
reverted. Thank you.
Dl2000 (
talk)
22:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Welcome to the Teahouse Badge |
Awarded to editors who have introduced themselves at the
Wikipedia Teahouse. Guest editors with this badge show initiative and a great drive to
learn how to edit Wikipedia. | |
Welcome very welcome if you have questions,please feel free to drop me a line!
|
![]() |
Hi Rameshnta909! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
I reverted your recent deletion (twice) of material from Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions. We don't just delete questions and answers from there. They will be automatically archived in due course, but are available to help other readers. - David Biddulph ( talk) 17:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Transport in Sri Lanka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Western Province ( 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) 14:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kalpitiya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Escapade ( 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) 09:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as
vandalism, such as the edit at
Telangana, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can
discourage editors. Please read
Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. Making edits with a non-neutral point of view does not make an editor a vandal. Please be careful when using such a term.
NeilN
talk to me
16:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
As I said before, only admins can protect pages. Please make a request at WP:RFPP. -- NeilN talk to me 17:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Please refrain from changing
genres without providing a
source and without establishing a
consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own
point of view are considered
disruptive. Thank you. ---
CuCl2
(chat
spy
acquaint)
12:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Ramenshnta909. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your nod on my edits at the Chili Pepper page. I can see you are new to the encyclopedia and seeking to make good faith edits. A couple of brief pointers: one, citations do not float to fit an editor's sense of style. As a general rule they belong where the original user inserted them. Only if you verify that the entirety of content at the desired new location is supported by that at the website cited may one be moved, not following inferences drawn or commentary by the original or subsequent editors.
Secondly, one must be very judicious in the use of Wikipedia's Minor Edit feature. It is to be employed only when there is no reasonable chance of other editors objecting to the edit. To help, I'll give two examples apropos of the above instance: one, say you found two commas in a row, even in a cited passage, like so: "January,, 2014". It is reasonable to conclude the second is a typo (and cannot be confused with legitimate punctuation such as three periods in a row, an ellipse). It would be appropriate to delete the redundant one and characterize your edit as a minor one, labeled perhaps "Removed redundant comma", "Minor copyedit" (or "Minor ce"). Example #2: say you found a passage where a citation was inserted immediately ahead of a comma. It is convention in Wikipedia for cites to immediately follow punctuation, not precede, so it would be fair to move the comma ahead of the cite and label one's edit as a minor copyedit.
Obvious corrections in spelling (and not switches from say British English to American English spelling conventions) are also minor edits, as say correcting "elipse" to "ellipse". Going beyond such simple mechanical sorts of edits strays outside of consensus use of the Minor Edit option.
Good luck, and have fun. Wikiuser100 ( talk) 11:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
The {{unreferenced}} tag you placed on this page seems unneeded as it is list to direct reader's attention to notable subjects. Each entry in the list must have a page, so it is assumed each one has asserted notability. Cluttering a simple list page with citations/footnotes/refs seems counterproductive as there should not be any unsourced entry there anyway. -- Alexf (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear Rameshnta909, I am quite sure that I haven't written anything in favour of anybody and certainly I have not used Wikipedia to create hero image to someone. I am absolutely sure about the neutrality of the content that I have added to the page and I can defend it. Also, I believe that Wikipedia is not a stage to be used for defamatory comments about a person. Of course, when you write about politicians there will be sections to be written about controversies. But it was sad to see that it was not written in a neutral manner therefore I made the edits. Also I have seen your reversion of the word that I have used "clean chit", which has got innumerable sources to prove it. Therefore I am undoing the edits and please take it in the right sense. I am not any political supporter. Arunjith 04:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)mail2arunjith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mail2arunjith ( talk • contribs)
In a recent edit to the page
Preet Bharara, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to
respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.
For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.
In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Paris1127 ( talk) 17:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Redtigerxyz. I noticed that you recently removed some content from
Dashavatara without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please 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. Stop removing references and distorting content. There are many references stating Buddha as an avatar in the popular list. See
Talk:Dashavatara#Balarama_or_Buddha where this has been discussed. Also, see references in the article. DO NOT revert, unless you can prove by
WP:RS that the article is wrong.
Redtigerxyz
Talk
10:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at
Dashavatara, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. Please discuss on
Talk:Dashavatara and provide
WP:RS to prove your point. Please check the references and previous discussion threads. STOP removing references and do not revert before discussion.
Redtigerxyz
Talk
12:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did to
Oommen Chandy, without
verifying it by citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
DMacks (
talk)
18:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Maria_Sharapova#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_4_July_2014 and gain consensus for the addition. -- NeilN talk to me 15:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Maria Sharapova shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. NeilN talk to me 15:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
You recently reverted the name Parikshita to Parikshit saying that it is a Sanskritized name and common usage is Parikshit. However we here at Wikipedia don't go by common usage. Also you actually forget that the Sanskritzed names are commonly used. In whichever article Shiva is mentioned his name is written as Shiva although the common usage is Shiv. Also you forget the common usage of Arjuna and Yudhistra is Arjun and Yudhistir. However wherever they are mentioned on Wikipedia their Sanskritized names are used. Also the common usage is actually the Hindi version of their names. We can't just change a name because its usage is different in the majority language. Whenever names of Hindu deities or mythological characters are mentioned, Sanskritized names are mostly used. You can see that in all articles about Hnduism on Wikipedia. Therefore I ask you to stop disputing over this issue especially since Sanskritized names are the common usage on Wikipedia. Also I notice that you have been involved in edit warring with many users. You should stop edit warring and learn to let things go. We cannot always get we want on Wikipedia. MythoEditor ( talk) 18:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vivian Sibold is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivian Sibold until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Gaijin42 ( talk) 18:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
This was not vandalism, rather I think was explicit improvement. Please use an edit summary next time. Regards and Good Luck! Fai zan 21:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Vandalism is not to be tolerated at wikipedia please stop. Abu reiss ( talk) 22:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Did you see that we are discussing moving this to "Islamic State", which is what it calls itself as do many other sources> Why have ignored that discussion and started an RM to a different name? Dougweller ( talk) 16:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Hey, just letting you know I refactored the heading for the section you created. Especially on article talk pages, you want to avoid using a specific editors name in the section heading. We're supposed to focus on the edits, not the editor. Using their name can also come across as a challenge or hostility to the other user. Sometimes what you think is perfectly fine can contribute to a more difficult environment. By starting the section with a neutral heading you can help keep possible tensions to a minimum. Mentioning the editor by name in the text of the section is perfectly fine, just try to keep it out of the heading. Thanks! Ravensfire ( talk) 18:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Wifione
Message
18:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)I myself don't agree with the current version, see [4] and [5] these are still two better version. I think that it can be changed if you add some discussion to this section > Talk:Dashavatara#Buddha_is_not_a_Avtar. Bladesmulti ( talk) 14:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
First of all you need to know that his blood brothers name is Shabbir Sharif Rana where rana is a rajput name. [ [6]][ [7]]
[ [8]]
the reason that some people are confused about him to be a kashmiri is because alot of indian sources took sharif out of his name and nawaz name and thought both are lahori and kashmiri as mentioned here [ [9]].. but he is a rajput maybe a bhatti rajput from kashmir but is from gujrat in pakistan as is his brother and uncle.
On the other hand he is nephew of Raja Aziz Bhatti who is a Rajput as here [ [10]] and also from his name
Now this is just a misconception.. and i think you can clear it out atleast .. there is one source that is rediff for kashmiri but there are most sources regarding his brother and himself which state he is a rajput — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Saladin1987 (
talk •
contribs)
16:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)