User talk:Taaoo

Welcome!

Hello, Taaoo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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:Where to ask a question, 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! , The Ogre 04:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bhati/Bhatti merger

I finally got around to starting merger discussions at Talk:Bhatti. Your comments would be appreciated. TimBentley 03:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got around to finishing the merge into Bhatti. I still don't know much about the subject, so feel free to fix any errors (or whatever). TimBentley 00:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bhati and Bhatti are both different clans. Bhattis generally belong to the Punjab province in the Indian State.

The Bhatis are the Rajputs of Jaiselmer in Rajasthan. Please demerge the articles.

Anirudh Singh Bhati

Could you please cite Sir Denzil Ibbetson's work, that you have mentioned on Talk:Bhatti. Bhati/Bhatti are different clans altogether.[1]

Even this page [2] suggests that Bhattis were Punjabi Rajputs who conquered territories in Pakistan. Bhati Rajputs are originally from Jaiselmer and they are a Chandravanshi clan. Bhattis have their origin from the Bhati clan. Bhattis are generally those who have embraced islam.

Please read [3] also, on Jatland Wiki. (A similar message has been posted on Talk:Bhatti) --Andy123(talk) 19:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS:(Anirudh Singh Bhati/Anirudh is Andy123(talk))

Sher Shah Suri

We have to say Sher Shah sent the letters. Shivraj Singh 18:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ur version is still not correct on Sher Shah page. On rajput page you will have to figure out what we did on Sher Shah. Figure what is acceptable and let me know. Do not insist on the word muslim rajput appearing on main rajput page.

Shivraj Singh 21:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look what ever you want to read from my message is up to you. Bottomline is word muslim rajput cannot appear on main rajput page. The quicker you get over it the better it is to move on. Focus on your page and not disruption. Shivraj Singh 21:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also Sammel you are trying to hide that sher Shah sent the letter. Make that clear. Shivraj Singh 21:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are not differentiating between a claim and acceptance of the claim. In my very first post on Wikipedia, where some muslim had challenged that rajputs were pushovers in battles, which caused me to write the invasion section, (U can look it up in Archives section of talk page), I mention that near my village there is a village of muslims who descended from rajputs. These guys celebrate Diwali/Holi etc. We donot go about telling them to not call themselves muslim rajputs. We do not accept them as rajputs i.e we do not have family ties with them. Shivraj Singh 21:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Sher Shah compare my version to yours and figure out. No need for another debate. Shivraj Singh 21:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rajputs in our area are referred to as Kunwar Sahab/Hukum or Thakur Sahab and that is how everyone there referes to us including the ranghars. We do not address them as such. So I know it is not what you like but that is what it is. A widow marriage example is irrelevant because statistical anomalies do exist. What matters is was everyone engaged in such behavior. Shivraj Singh 22:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Muslims are not referred to as Hukums rather as Maulana. Original home near Mandore. What about you? BTW you still have not made the change on Sher Shah page. Shivraj Singh 18:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim soul

I think I just realized what you intended to say with the infamous "Muslim soul" statement :) It occurred to me that "Islam" is really the literal Arabic translation of Sanskrit "Bhakti", so yes, a Muslim is a Bhakta, and a Bhakta is a Muslim. The statement may go down better with the Singhs, maybe, if you state that, equivalently, every Muslim has a Bhakta soul ;) just a thought, since the bhakti article itself states that the concept of "devotion to the godhead" is essentially the same in all religions. dab (ᛏ) 20:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

we don't need to decide whether Shivraj is "right". There are evidently two differing points of view (although both remain unsourced as of now), and Shivraj is clearly right according to one pov, but he refuses to admit the existence of the other. He would be perfectly free to document his side of the fence, if he didn't intervene with the other side. I do believe that Shivraj's view is a widely held among Hindu Rajputs of Rajasthan (although nobody pointed us to an actual reference), so he is "right" in a way. But Rajasthan is not the world, and if matters lie differently in the Punjab, then we'll have to tell the other side of the story. Whichever way it comes out, I will just insist that proper sources are quoted. The "References" section of the Singh's version is a bad joke, and even just listing book titles is not enough, you need to actually say what's in the book and what isn't. dab (ᛏ) 21:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we can get there. We cannot solve the Indian-Pakistani issues on Wikipedia, but we can arrive at a serious article, presenting all sides. This is the only thing I am committed to here, since I have no way of knowing what "really" happened short of reading up on it in books. dab (ᛏ) 22:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we cannot aspire to "make people think outside their mindset". For every pov-pusher who is reformed in weeks of debate, five fresh fanatics will show up. No, the only way is to enforce WP:5P, politely first, but without compromise. To make this clear to everyone reading this: unsourced "Muslim" pov will be unacceptable as much as any other unsourced pov. My patience may be wearing thin at times, and then I'll just take a break and be back later, but there are many reasonable people around here. People who cannot grasp the term "encyclopedia" will not prevail, but they can be a waste of time, this is the drawback of our system here. The dispute will also never be "over", but the article can be improved step by step. It is horrible right now, and I am counting on you to build it as fairly as you can, founding each statement in literature if possible. If you feel burnt out, take a break. I've been on Wikipedia for some 17 months now, and I've seen worse than this (there are many nationalist causes in this world, the Indian ones are just one fragment of these). dab (ᛏ) 22:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Khurram, my dear khurram, forgive me. Just please forgive my words, I can make long cases of defence and whatnot, but eventually I have no quarrel with you. Your ideas are so noble that I feel ashamed of my small-minded "common dominance/violence background" statement on dabachmann's talkpage. I saw your acceptance of Bachmann's idea that "Islam" and "Bhakti" have the same meaning, and I felt it was too much. Anyway I will not go into defences; many of us have problems with English and I think that is a big part of the misunderstanding here.

I think I am getting too involved in "fundamentalist" issues, and so I am going to pursue other interests on WP for some time. I am in the situation of having issues with both camps, this is the sad situation in which many, many people in India are placed at the moment. However, your courtesy and temperance ensure that you are not the "equal and opposite" of that other mob, and I do hope to have a good working relationship with you on WP in future, something I am rapidly losing hope of ever being able to do with those others. ImpuMozhi 17:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ijtihad

Well, not only Sunni scholars matter... Schnact is important... although not the only view. To deny that there is the concept of the close of the gate of ijtihad for Sunnis would be silly... but there should be debate on if it's a proper label. As far as I understand Shia imams have historically had more leeway since they have more power in general. However, there's no room to really discuss it on Islam. gren グレン 16:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wisesabre and Rajput

Am thankful to Raja and to you for your participation in the discussions. Can I request you to have a word with User:Wisesabre regarding reverts on Rajput please? As you can see, it is not helping our efforts of reaching some sort of consensus. Thanks. --rgds. Miljoshi | talk 12:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I'm afraid, WP:3RR is broken once again by User:Wisesabre today for Rajput. --rgds. Miljoshi | talk 12:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

bro i cant cite any refernces because first of all my university library does not hosts any book on these sort of topics, secondly Punjab public library is not going to issue me any books (they dont issue to under graduates).thirdly I myself is not much intersted in Rajputi.

That is why im Counting on You. I assure you that im not going to edit Rajput article again and I wont indulge my self in any edit war there, other then if you request.

I totally Agree with you Wisesabre 18:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link.

Actually Saqib Saud is my real name and Saif Ullah is to whom im most inspired. Wisesabre 19:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sher Shah

I left couple of message on your discussion to revert back to what we agree on sher shah discussion page. You just did not listen. I was hoping I would have not have to do the revert. Shivraj Singh 20:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput/Workshop. Fred Bauder 00:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Arabic

HI! Could you kindly help me interpreate the following (which I think is in Arabic (?), and is claimed to be a 2000 yrs old inscription, currently in the Kabba shrine (?) ). I saw a so-called "English" translation from a library in Istambul, but would like to varify the accuracy. Thanks. --ΜιĿːtalk 07:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"...Itrashaphai Santu Ibikramatul Phahalameen Karimun Yartapheeha Wayosassaru Bihillahaya Samaini Ela Motakabberen Sihillaha Yuhee Quid min howa Yapakhara phajjal asari nahone osirom bayjayhalem. Yundan blabin Kajan blnaya khtoryaha sadunya kanateph netephi bejehalin Atadari bilamasa- rateen phakef tasabuhu kaunnieja majekaralhada walador. As hmiman burukankad toluho watastaru hihila Yakajibaymana balay kulk amarena phaneya jaunabilamary Bikramatum..." (Sayar-ul-okul, pg. 315).

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput

A final decision has been reached in this case and it has been closed.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 21:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Tomb-Pir Nazeer.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tomb-Pir Nazeer.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 00:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:PirQasimRA.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:PirQasimRA.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 13:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:PirNazeerRA.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:PirNazeerRA.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 13:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sher Shah Suri article

Hello everyone,

I am going to write an extremely detailed article on Sher Shah Suri and this is my statement of intent. I am going to use the following books with citations

1. India since 1526 by Vidya Dhar Mahajan 2. Sher Shah Suri: A New Perspective by Basheer Ahmad Khan Matta 3. Rohtas: Formidable Fort of Sher Shah by Ihsan H. Nadiem

Since the article will be extremely detailed I intend to use skeletons at first.

I have seen the discussion on this page and i wanted to tell you people about it.

The other thing i could do is to start a parallel page and then people can decide which page they want.

Thank You.

Ottoman language Wikipedia

Hello Taaoo

I am a history teacher from Istanbul, in Turkey. We need your vote [4] for opening Ottoman Language wikipedia

--Tarih 20:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:NisbatLogo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:NisbatLogo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qasimiya

Hello, Taaoo. You have new messages at HelloAnnyong's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

It's been three days now, and there's no improvement on Qasimiya. If it stays this way, I'm going to have to change the page to a redirect. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you done with your edits? If you are, I'm going to go through and clean up everything, since it's... really impossible to understand right now. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No my friend. I have fever and am not able to work on this page. Only the first paragraph has been updated. Your edits look good. I don't think we need to improve upon them.

خرم Khurram (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Khurmi. You seem to know a lot about Rajput history. Can you give a rough estimate about how many hindus in general and paticularly Rajputs died during muslim invasions spanning over a millenium. Thank you. truthseeker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.121.200.192 (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mohra Sharif for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mohra Sharif 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/Mohra Sharif 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 template from the top of the article.

Proposed deletion of Khwaja Nizam ad Din

The article Khwaja Nizam ad Din has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Done with WP:BEFORE. Could not find any reliable sources for the biographical article. As it seems no WP:PROOF, it does not qualify for WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MSLQr (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]