User talk:Toambird

Hi! I am Toambird and I love to edit Wikipedia.

Guideline-Policy-Article on Wikipedia that talks about "Image-verification"

Namaste Toambird, I AM interested in a specific edit [1] that You made to Jat people. Well, Dear, You have removed File:JatGirlAllyghur1868.jpg from that specific Article. And, the edit summary that You have texted My Friend, has definitely drawn My attention, to say the least, and I have found it very interesting; and, to be honest, I haven't had a deep look at any Guideline-Policy-Article on Wikipedia that talks about "Image-verification". Would like to share with Me, or better provide a link to any Guideline-Policy-Article on Wikipedia, that talks about "Image-verification"; of-course, if You may like to. Thanks !! ← Abstruce 12:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Namaste Toambird, I think You have got a very-good-point here [2], that is very much worthy of consideration. After I had a good look at File:JatGirlAllyghur1868.jpg, I realised what You are rightfully pointing-out (I think). As, the summary read -->> "Photographer unknown, 1868". To say the least, You have a point, Dear !! Thanks !! ← Abstruce 15:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Namaste ji! I disagree with your recent edit regarding title of a section. My point is that if there can be a title of sikh jat states, then I don't find a good reason for not including 'Hindu' word in the title of that section related to Hindu Jat states. -Toambird (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Namaste Toambird, Thank You for Your query, and by noticing that You have a query and You are asking me to answer that, I AM assuming that -->> You having faith in Me and You believe (or at-least "think") that I may be able to settle things with a "realistic" approach.

I AM sure that You are talking about this edit [3]. And, I hope You do Read the edit summary provided. Also, I want You to know that I have texted that edit summary after giving it a thought, and it is not an output of few random clicks on the key-board. But, I would be honest, after quickly viewing Your edit [4] (I was not satisfied with the use of the word "fixed"); I did view the Article Hindu Jats, and then quickly jumped to this edit [5], thought about it for a few minutes actually, and them did some googling, and then I manually reverted Your edit. But, I have noticed that You did revert My edit [6], and restored the earlier version; but as You may have realised by now that Your recent edits to the Article Jat people have been reverted by Elockid. While, I do agree that "47% and 20% are definitely not equal", I would disagree with You here [7]. Anyways, We would only talk about the relevant one here, the other are best suited to be discussed at Talk:Jat people. But, if You may view the Revision history of the Article, You would realise that neither TheSuave reverted that edit made by Me, nor Elockid; but You edit was indeed reverted by Elockid, and that was NOT a mistake by Elockid (I AM talking only about the relevant one, here [8] ). Besides the edit summary provided, an important thing, that You may have slipped is that I did not restored the title of the section from "Hindu Jat states of the 18th century" (Your's version) to "Jat states of the 18th century" (earlier version), but, renamed it to "States of the 18th century"; now, this was something really interesting, if You may have picked it up, or still pick it up (also, note that it was not reverted by any Gentleman) !! I mean, come'on, We ALL know that the Article "Jat people" is about Jat people, and, it is quite obvious that We are focused on history and study of the Jats, as fat as the Article "Jat people" is concerned. So, I tried to found a way out to the situation, that should cease any possibility an Edit war, and that too without a compromise in any aspect at all.

About Sikhs, at-least I believe that Sikhs kings, leaders, soldiers and militia, initially were fighting under 'one common flag' of Khalsa (and, I think that They were seriously watching each-other's back), and were initially focused on a common goal i.e, to resist forced conversions to an other religion that They did not wish to profess; but yes, later on They also initiated the expansion of their kingdom, and even break-threw into Afghanistan, over-running the Afghans, at a point of time. If You look at their army, You would realise that They had leaders from various communities, for example, Jats (ex. Baba Deep Singh, Ranjit Singh, Hari Singh Nalwa ), Khatris ( ex. Guru Gobind Singh ), Rajputs ( ex. Banda Singh Bahadur ), Ramgarhias ( ex. Jassa Singh Ramgarhia, Jodh Singh Ramgarhia, Mangal Singh Ramgarhia, Tara Singh Ramgarhia ) and a huge militia consisting of firmly determined Gentlemen from the Dalit communities (It's so sad even to text this word). So, I do not think it is a bad idea, to name the section as "Sikh states", and within mentioning about the respective Jat people, who had had the throne. What do You think about it, now ?!

And, Dear Friend, may I respectfully advice You to develop the skill of discussing things on the Articles' Talk pages !! Here's Your weekend package -->> Wikipedia:List_of_policies_and_guidelines ← Abstruce 09:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)