This is an archive of past discussions with User:Faizhaider. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
thank you for that humble greeting gesture. sorry i saw it today (incredibly busy, much things are new to me). I truly agree to work with you on Lucknow page and make it a GA one day, so do i wish. Once again, thank you.
Wikiboy2364 (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Haidergarh (Vidhan Sabha constituency), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Independent and SSP (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.
Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Comic Con 2012 Bangalore - Inside.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out)15:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Mohammad Waris Hasan Naqvi 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. j⚛e deckertalk05:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Isn't it funny that abu bakr is the only person mentioned who has a large section questioning the timing of his conversion? There is no dispute among Sunnis as to his early conversion. The only ones who dispute this (for obvious sectarian reasons) is the shia, who only constitute a small minority of 'muslims'. Hence their minority view should not be entertained so leniently on this article. If you have a problem with the timing of his conversion then feel free to add that on the 'shia view of abu bakr'.58.106.235.46 (talk) 00:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
The above link gives law of 1966 and it states, "Clause 7 of the Bill empowers the Government to direct, by notification, the use of Urdu or any other language or languages in addition to the Telugu language, in such areas and for such official purposes of the State and for such periods, as may be specified in such notification."
It's interesting that you removed this link soon after it was added here, but I guess it didn't suit your purpose, since it seems to indicate that Urdu is not an official language in post-partition AP. If Urdu was an official language in post-partition AP they wouldn't need to request that it become one. Thomas.W talk19:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
@Thomas.W: And it's intresting that you didn't saw my next edit and edit-comment. And your statement "If Urdu was an official language in post-partition AP they wouldn't need to request that it become one.", doen't it mounts to WP:Synthesis/WP:OR when The news link just says "Urdu as the second official language in Andhra Pradesh", it dosen't elaborates if it means reinstate or continue "Urdu as the second official language in Andhra Pradesh". Your above comment and synthesis shows your POV & bias against Urdu.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs19:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not biased, I just dislike POV-pushing, of which there is a lot going on on articles relating to India. Over the past few days alone I have reverted, and in most cases warned, editors for POV-edits promoting Punjabi, Hindi, Urdu and Kannada, so it doesn't matter to me which language, religion or whatever the POV edits are pushing. I saw your next edit, BTW, and edit summary. Edit conflicts removing material do happen, and have happened a number of times to me. All of those edits involved me adding material seconds after someone else had added a post, with the diffs of my edits showing both the material I added and the material that was accidentally removed. But you didn't add any material, there was no edit conflict when you did it (the post was added five minutes before you removed it, and the next post after that was made two minutes later by Vin09 asking you why you removed it), and the diff for your edit shows that all that happened was that the previous editors post was removed. You're allowed to remove posts from your talk page, though, so don't worry, even though it reflects badly on you in this discussion. Thomas.W talk19:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
@Thomas.W: I'm not pushing any POV nor deliberately removing commnets from my talk. If you would have looked for you may have seen that indeed I was refining my previous edit and have added this which was lost when my edit was reverted by Vin09 and which I reinstated in next edit. But all of this if you want to see, or you may try to corner me by your "it reflects badly on you in this discussion" stuff while you fully avoided main point of my previous edit talking about you doing synthesis/OR from the source. But you are free to not to answer or leave discussion if you want--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs19:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I have reverted your addition of a language pie to the article since it's based on pre-division census data, which is totally irrelevant in an article about post-division Andhra Pradesh. It is a well known fact that the vast majority of the Urdu-speakers in pre-division Andhra Pradesh were concentrated to what is now the state of Telangana, so your edits are balancing on the edge of being seen as POV-pushing. In other words, please stop. Thomas.W talk15:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Dear Thomas, thanks for posting at my talk page. But have seen what I have done and on basis of what? Let me explain I had added pie chart which is based on data already present in the article. If you think my edit was POV then the data already present is POV too and you have not taken any step to eliminate the source data but focussed on derived pie and accused me of POV-pushing. Also, the article is full of statistics based on pre-division Andhra Pradesh, how do you plan to get rid of this POV. IMHO, by your given logic and action of removal of the language-pie we sould remove all statistics/data/derived-graphs/etc which is based on pre-division Andhra Pradesh stats. I'll suggest you restore back the language-pie or clear the article of all pre-division Andhra Pradesh stats. Thanks & happy editing.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs16:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I have posted an answer on my talk page; let's keep it in one place. And no, I'm not going to restore the language pie, and I strongly suggest you don't either. Thomas.W talk16:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
@Faizhaider: The data in the article seems to be wrong too, yes, and should be corrected as soon as new data is available (data that someone ought to be able to compile from the latest census figures, since the census data most likely includes language distribution per district...). But a large graphic language pie is far more obvious than text, and far more likely to start a larger edit war than there already is, which is why I reverted your edit. Thomas.W talk16:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
This edit almost makes me believe that you want to start an edit-war. The position of Urdu as an official language in post-partion Andhra Pradesh seems to be very uncertain, yet you try to add a very visible graphic illustration based on language data from a pre-partition census, data that even I, a European with no connection to India, know can't possibly be true for post-partion Andhra Pradesh, and now this... Thomas.W talk17:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
You can believe whatever you want, I rarely engage in edit-wars, at least I remember none in last few months. Also, you being European doesn't make you of any different status, Europeans too have POV and they may be inclined to one or other side due to any reason. FYI, the category was rather restored by me and not added. I'm just trying to restore the content which had been removed from article in frenzy of partition sentiments. I see these removals as ethnic/linguistic/communal POV-pushing. If something is uncertain than status-quo i.e. provious status should be maintained rather cleaning article by whims and fancies of few editors trying to delink post-partion AP from legacy of pre-partion AP.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs18:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
That the vast majority of the Urdu-speakers in pre-partition Andhra Pradesh lived in the districts that now make up Telangana, mainly centered around Hyderabad, and not in what is now post-partition Andhra Pradesh is not uncertain, making your attempt to add both the large graphic "language pie" based on data for pre-partition AP and the category in the diff above obvious POV-pushing. For which you will be formally warned if you continue. Thomas.W talk18:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
@Thomas.W: But you only said, "The position of Urdu as an official language in post-partion Andhra Pradesh seems to be very uncertain". And now you say "not uncertain". If you have source and data please enlighten me and put a fullstop to this whole conversation, if not then you should atleast agree that there are Urdu speakers in residual AP, hence, the category is valid and should be reinstated.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs19:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
If you read that post again you'll find that I did not say that "the position of Urdu as official language in post-partition is not uncertain", as you try to claim, I said that it is not uncertain that the vast majority of the Urdu-speakers in pre-partition AP lived in the districts that now make up Telangana. Which is something totally different. Thomas.W talk20:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)::
@Thomas.W: If you have source and data "that it is not uncertain that the vast majority of the Urdu-speakers in pre-partition AP lived in the districts that now make up Telangana" please providr and put a fullstop to this whole conversation.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs20:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
You might be interested in this link to "Language in India". There's a table with population figures for 2003, but a quick check shows that the numbers don't add up properly so I wouldn't trust the table. The page does, however, also say that based on high numbers of Urdu speakers Urdu was a second offical language in 14 of the 23 districts in Andhra Pradesh prior to partition, all ten districts that now make up Telangana, and four of the 13 districts that make up post-partition AP. Which clearly shows that there was/is a much higher concentration of Urdu-speakers in what is now Telangana than in Coastal Andhra. Thomas.W talk20:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I've already supported it earlier, you can see the AP talk page, but User:Visakha veera provided some proofs, so took back my comment. If you also can provide the correct reference, let's keep it. You saying it is not removed, and not provided where it is kept. So, let's have it on AP talk page. Whichever is correct would be kept. Any of us may right, but the thing is correct info needs to be kept. About Telangana there is no problem they have recognised. About AP still no such news.--Vin09 (talk) 04:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
August 2014
Hello, I'm Vin09. An edit that you recently made to Andhra Pradesh seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, 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. Thanks! Vin09 (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
No, the edit was not test/mistake, it was done with full knowledge. IMHO removal of the category is either mistake or POV-pushing. Can you let me know why you think it was test?
FYI, the category was rather restored by me and not added. I'm just trying to restore the content which had been removed from article in frenzy of partition sentiments. I see these removals as ethnic/linguistic/communal POV-pushing. If something is uncertain than status-quo i.e. provious status should be maintained rather cleaning article by whims and fancies of few editors trying to delink post-partion AP from legacy of pre-partion AP.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs18:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
@Faizhaider:ok, so that may apply to Telangana, but as a whole in Andhra Pradesh there is no official language Urdu. Many of the organizations are asking for a review on second language to the chief minister to be considered as second language like how it was before partition. At present, you can see the AP state portal, purely updated post bifurcation which states only Telugu.--Vin09 (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Above link is the article about "Telugu Language" and not about "official language of AP" and states that It is the state language of Andhra Pradesh. The article itself is quite old and belongs to pre-partition AP era. So, I fail to understand how it is able to define anything about status of Urdu in AP (pre or post partition).--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs18:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
So, what about this news, if Urdu is the official language demand for urdu? You say that website is new, content is old, then where is the statement about Urdu in that website, the whole website is completely modified. If you want please visit this page.--Vin09 (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Faizhaider. An edit that you recently made to Uttar Pradesh seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, 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. As per Territory (country subdivision) article, "Territory is a designation for a type of political—geographic country subdivisions, used by various countries in the past and/or currently."Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs18:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
"country subdivision" was the piece which I wanted to point to. But for arguments sake let us assume your edit-comment "... is not a coutry nor a territory, its a state)" is valid for all states but why did you removed category from Delhi? APMK, Delhi is termed either as Union Territory or National Capital Territory (NCT of Delhi). Don't you see conflict in your comment and action? And if you insist we can rename category Category:Urdu-speaking countries and territories → Category:Urdu-speaking countries and subdivisions, may then we'll be more politicall & terinalogically correct, any suggestions?--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs19:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Right, you can change the name of category, and about New Delhi, I removed it, may have overlooked it. You can revert it back.--Vin09 (talk) 04:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
@Thomas.W: & @Vin09: Let me join above three threads here, we have been discussing the topic and thanks to all, the discussion is still sane and moving in positive direction. We have been discussing,
G.O.Ms.No. 63 LAW (F) DEPARTMENT Dated: 27th June, 2014. The Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2014, will be published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette in English, Telugu and Urdu Languages as Andhra Pradesh Act No.4 of 2014.
Above GO clearly states that "Andhra Pradesh Gazette" is still being published in Urdu too, affirming co-official status of the Language in post-partition AP. I hope above proof gives some conclusive evidence that Urdu has not lost it's status in new AP.
Also, in post partition AP, Urdu is second offical language in following districts (based on pre-partion GOs and reports as found in this govt. report/doc,
So, in a whole subregion i.e. Rayalaseema Urdu is still second official language, and enjoys same status in 2 districts of another region.
Status of Urdu as a significant minority language,
It is clear by another link provided by Thomas, in residual AP, Urdu is spoken by 15.1% in Kurnool, 13.9% in Prakasam, 13.7% in Kadapa, 10.3% in Anantapur, 9.8% in Guntur, 8.3% in Nellore, 8.2% in Chittoor, 5.9% in Krishna & less than 5% in other 5 districts. If we take percentages of Urdu speakers from above link and extrapolate it with stats given at List of districts in Andhra Pradesh then in new AP around 3.5 million people out of total population of 49 million speak Urdu (BTW this mounts to data research and I don't intend to put/use these figures anywhere but for purpose of giving perspective). Also AP state has it's own Urdu Academy which shows Urdu is significant minority language.
I hope I have given enough proofs and arguments to put my point, wiating for help from you guys, I stand ready to be corrected if I'm wrong, missed any info or you guys have gathered some other info. Thanks.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs07:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
your reference say it is published in Telugu, English, Urdu. so, English is also official language according to you. Publishing is only for the employees. Can you provide perfect proof from State government website? If you have anything to say use the talk page of AP.--Vin09 (talk) 09:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
It seems I erroneously assumed that people particiapating in a discussion entailing status of language in a State of Union of India will be aware of special status of English & Hindi in India especially of English when it comes to interpretation of law, communication between states and centre. Let me give some references from constitution of India,
"As per the Article 348(3), in cases where the State has prescribed any language other than English for use in Bills or Acts passed by the Legislature 'a translation of the same in the English language published under the authority of the Governor of the State in the Official Gazette of that shall be deemed to be the authoritative text ....' in English."
So, all Union & State communications are accompanied by English translation when State has prescribed any language other than English. So, all state publish their communications including Gazette in state/oficial language, second-official/co-official language and in English as required by Article 348(3) of Constitution of India. Publishing Gazette in English shows that the Govt is abiding by Article 348(3) of Constitution of India and in addition if it publishes Gazette in any other language apart from state/oficial language it shows special status of the language namely second-official/co-official language, like in case of Andhra Pradesh Gazette which is published in English (because of legal requirement as prescribed by Article 348(3) of Constitution of India), Telugu (because it is state/oficial language) and Urdu (because it is second-official/co-official language).--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs09:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
@Vin09:"Can you provide perfect proof from State government website?",
I have provided proofs that Urdu is still being used as special language by Govt. of AP. The Andhra Pradesh Official Language Act, 1966 has made special provision for use of Urdu if you can proove that the act has been overruled/amnded by some another act/ordinance/govt-order please bring your proof. If you give ambigous newspaper article it is good by when I give proof from govt. records it is not okay, is it not hypocrisy? I have shown from your own links that the point which you were trying to make are not supported by those links but you don't answer that and herecome asking proof from me. I'm just trying to restore long standing data & category on the article, but it being removed on weak/futile/meagre pretexts, WP:Burden of proof lies on you to proove that after partition AP govt. has withdrawn co-official status of Urdu. Thanks.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs09:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
than's not proof, I asked you to check that for reference, apart from English and Hindi, the others are the state languages. For the proof I gave you already the official website Ref check Languages & Culture section. You say it is not removed, I say most of the native speakers are now in Telangana not in Andhra Pradesh. Can you provide the same type of proof for Urdu on AP site. Not beyond bifurcation, I say after June 2014, is there anything on the state website, because official language is not any small thing to forget, the state website definitely updates. IF it is already exists then why this requests to the Chief minister Demand for Urdu. Also, see Talk:Andhra_Pradesh#Urdu this section where I supported Urdu. But after some proofs I took my word back.--Vin09 (talk) 10:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I have already answered to your above points and provided my own which you have failed to reply. You say, "apart from English and Hindi, the others are the state languages" on what ground you have deduced this? Telangana emblem does'nt uses Hindi, what do you say about that? If all Urdu speakers are now in Telangana not in Andhra Pradesh what about 3.5 million people out of total population of 49 million speak Urdu and why AP govt. is still publishing it's Gazettes in Urdu too as I have stated in G.O.Ms.No. 63 LAW (F) DEPARTMENT Dated: 27th June, 2014. Till now you have not been able to proove that after partition AP govt. has withdrawn co-official status of Urdu, while I have shown it is still publishing it's communications in Urdu too.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs10:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Invited to butt in I would go with Faizhaider on this one....since there has been no official announcement about removing urdu as an official language, I suppose we must continue the status quo. Thanks, ƬheStrikeΣagle10:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Frankly speaking, I'm not able to get what exactly you want to say here, but I assume you are saying that I have not refered to any official website page of Government of Andhra Pradesh, what abot GO, Acts of Union of India & State of AP...
Yes 'apteacher.net' is a normal website, so what? The link you have provided http://goir.ap.gov.in/, thanks for that, G.O.Ms.No. 63 LAW (F) DEPARTMENT Dated: 27th June, 2014 is present there if you take pain to search it, if you know, the website doesn't give permalinks to documnets but just temp-links for download so it is hard to cite from the site, somebody has to go and will the form to download & verify the citation. BTW, there all documents are in English, none even in Telugu which I was able to find. For ease, I queried the website with following parameters:
DEPARTMENT: LAW
SECTION : F
GO TYPE : MS
GO NO : 63
and got following result,
1 select MS 63 27/06/2014 Service Matter ACTS - State - The Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2014 - Publication ordered as Andhra Pradesh Act No. 4 of 2014. NO LAW F 0
Andhra Pradesh is not newly created (if you mean 2 Jun 2014) it is in contnium of Andhra Pradesh which was fromed on 1 November 1956, when the States Reorganisation Act formed Andhra Pradesh by merging Andhra State with the Telugu-speaking areas of the already existing Hyderabad State. The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, formed new new state of Telangana comprising ten districts of pre-partition Andhra Pradesh.
if you had any source about Urdu is one of the Official language in Andhra Pradesh please provide only government source not a private blog or website source
So, now just for sake of Urdu's status in AP you'll go off-way and deny all WP policies like WP:RS criteria and define your own just to push you POV & bias against Urdu. Anyways I have given GO ref from you "government source" website and above also I have qoted various Acts & Laws of Union of India & State of Andhra Pradesh regarding status of Languages in general and Urdu in specific.
Finally, I'll reiterate, I'm just trying to restore long standing data & category on the article, but it being removed on weak/futile/meagre pretexts, WP:Burden of proof lies on you to proove that after partition AP govt. has withdrawn co-official status of Urdu. Till now no one has been able to proove that after partition AP govt. has withdrawn co-official status of Urdu, while I have shown it is still publishing most important document i.e. Gazette in Urdu too.
The portal has just title 'Languages' and path 'Home > AP Fact File > History and Culture > Languages'. This clearly shows you POV-push in support of Telugu & against Urdu & other languages.
if Government Order is printed in a language its become official language? in your opinion English is official language of state of Andhra Pradesh! every state will officially announce their state mother tongue! show me in Andhra Pradesh Government official website as Urdu is an co official language? there is lot of different between official language and co languages! Urdu is just small minority language in newly created Andhra Pradesh! i am respecting all languages! don't think my points as bad ! (Visakha veera (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC))
Have you even read the thread above, I have already replied to your point above. Let me reiterate it once again,
"As per the Article 348(3), in cases where the State has prescribed any language other than English for use in Bills or Acts passed by the Legislature 'a translation of the same in the English language published under the authority of the Governor of the State in the Official Gazette of that shall be deemed to be the authoritative text ....' in English."
So, all Union & State communications are accompanied by English translation when State has prescribed any language other than English. So, all state publish their Gazette in state/oficial language, second-official/co-official language and in English as required by Article 348(3) of Constitution of India. Publishing Gazette in English shows that the Govt is abiding by Article 348(3) of Constitution of India and in addition if it publishes Gazette in any other language apart from state/oficial language it shows special status of the language namely second-official/co-official language, like in case of Andhra Pradesh Gazette which is published in English (because of legal requirement as prescribed by Article 348(3) of Constitution of India), Telugu (because it is state/oficial language) and Urdu (because it is second-official/co-official language)
You said, "can you find any Government order is in Urdu? if you find it i will accept your answer.", now when I have given the proof, you are making excuses and raising already raised & answered objections. You are not abiding by your words that proofs your anti Urdu POV & bias.
I have provided proofs that Urdu is still being used as special language by Govt. of AP. The Andhra Pradesh Official Language Act, 1966 has made special provision for use of Urdu if you can proove that the act has been overruled/amended by some another act/ordinance/govt-order please bring your proof. I have shown from your own links that the point which you were trying to make are not supported by those links but you don't answer that and herecome asking proof from me. I'm just trying to restore long standing data & category on the article, but it being removed on weak/futile/meagre pretexts, WP:Burden of proof lies on you to proove that after partition AP govt. has withdrawn co-official status of Urdu.
Are you reading my replies? It seems not, I have answered all these point in above thread(s). Either you are not reading my replies or you are not able to grasp language of my replies or you are ignoring them because they don't suite you and you don't have answers to them.
User:Vin09 had already raised these points and I have answered them, then User:Vin09canvased & campaiged on which User:Strike Eagle responded, following is the response (which you can find in above thread too, but because you are not taking pain to go through above thread so for you convinience I'm quoting it again),
"Invited to butt in I would go with Faizhaider on this one....since there has been no official announcement about removing urdu as an official language, I suppose we must continue the status quo. Thanks, ƬheStrikeΣagle 10:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)"
"So, earlier a User:Visakha veera removed, where I supported it. It's OK, now you people only decide whether to keep or not. @Faizhaider: take it as an important discussion and nothing against you. Thanks.--Vin09 (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)"
I'll again ask you to thoroughly read above thread(s) and don't raise same points which have already been answered, that will safe lot of everybody's time and effort.
@Visakha veera: Plz come with some new argument/point. This has already been raised and answered. I'll strongly suggest you read the discussion thoroughly and then make any further comment/action. That will save everybody's time & effort. Thanks--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs18:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
@Faizhaider: its very important! you are not understanding! is Indian express is a small blog? are you understanding? minority employees are urge cm make Urdu as official language! are you ready for legal notices? we will settle this issue in court! (Visakha veera (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)) .
how is it become personal attacks? we are showing proofs! you are arguing blindly! i am ready for blocking? you are ready for blocking and court cases? @Faizhaider:. we are showing proofs that urdu is not official language in andhra pradesh! but you are still arguing.
Plz come with some new argument/point. This has already been raised and answered. I'll strongly suggest you read the discussion thoroughly and then make any further comment/action. That will save everybody's time & effort. Thanks--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs06:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
This is just a small reference not to hurt you, but only for the improvement of the page, if you can see this reference New AP profile page which states -> The most commonly spoken language of the state is Telugu. Hindi, English and Tamil are the other languages used. and this is the Telangana Profile page after state bifurcation which state -> The most commonly spoken language of the state is Telugu. Hindi, English and Urdu are the other languages used. I'll strive for betterment of the page, at the end, anyone of us may right, but ultimately the page should be with correct info for the readers. I forgot to provide this reference yesterday, only to notify you and nothing against your comments. Please check if, it may be useful.--Vin09 (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Not to dicredit but just to point out, the document although targets post-partition Andhra Pradesh it is dated 20 May 2014 and may have compiled much before. During our above discussion threads, we have seen that status of Urdu still remains ambigous in post-partition Andhra. On one hand it is establish that Urdu was co-official lnaguage of pre-partition Andhra Pradesh, The Andhra Pradesh Official Language Act, 1966 has made special provision for use of Urdu and it is still force in AP and has not been overruled/amnded by some another act/ordinance/govt-order; also, post-partition too Govt of AP is issuing Gazette in Urdu too which as per GOI As per the Article 348(3) shows special status of Urdu in state. On other hand we have govt websites & portals (many of whom are actually old wine in new bottle) are totally silent on Urdu's status even if they mention it. We also know that in post partition AP, Urdu is second offical language in atleast 6 districts (based on pre-partion GOs and reports). This all has generated ambiguity and confusion regarding status of Urdu in post-partion AP. Now we can maintain status-quo untill we have clear proof that that the act(s), GO(s), ordinance(s) giving special status to Urdu in pre-partition AP have been overruled/amended by some another act/ordinance/govt-order in post-partition AP. I have not given link to any site/doc/etc to keep post light as they have already been provided in above threads.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs07:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
That may be a good point, there are some news articles by seeing them we getting confused like this urdu missing from ap assembly proceedings. There is a reference in another site maps of India that supports Urdu which may be helpful for you. Fine, I wanted to leave the debate yesterday, but actually I forgot that reference yesterday and posted it today which is in the above section. Fine then, I'll quit this debate, if you have any issue can ping me. Thanks and Cheers.--Vin09 (talk) 09:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
@Vin09: The siasat link proves the level of confusion, that status of Urdu is not clear even to MLAs as they are asking for Urdu script, and the answer itself just says script not printed in Urdu rather saying Urdu no more special/co-official language of state. This link just elaborates the we on WP are not the only people who are confused but even legisaltors too don't have clear picture of the situation.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs09:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Lucknow Metro
hi faiz. I am working tirelessly to make Lucknow and other articles related to it, wikipedia's top quality articles (which includes GA for Lucknow). In that aspect, i saw you updated Lucknow metro page with a route map template. Thank you for that! it's just that can you align that template to the centre as a lot of white space is left on the right. If it can't be done than i can add some text to the right side. Thanking you, Wikiboy2364 (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello. You're free to remove material from your talk page (with certain exceptions related to sanctions), but you're NOT free to refactor talk page comments made by others while keeping their original signatures, making it seem like they have written something that they did not write. As you did with posts made by Visakha veera. Thomas.W talk08:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) :@Thomas.W: okay I got it, it was due to copy-paste job (you may have noticed that I have been copying relevant talk form AP page to mine and two headings were quite similar). You may have noticed that I even don't remove rants & warnings from my talk (everything archived) forget somebody's relevant comment knowing that they are save in history and will not help me or my repute (8 yrs @ WP have thaught me many lessons & still learning). Thanks, that you are keeping eagle-eye on me and pointing my errors so that I can correct myself.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs10:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
On behalf of WikiProject Lucknow, I am inviting you to join our WikiProject. WikiProject Lucknow is a project, aims to create, expand, and maintain articles that relate to the city of Lucknow. If you are not a member already, you can add your name here. If are already a member, disregard this message. Thank you. -- Wikiboy2364 (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC).
August 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Ayatollahs may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
* ''Ayatollah'' [[Syed]] [[Yusuf Kashmiri]] (1908–1982))<ref name=SAISA>{{cite web|title=SHIAS OF KASHMIR: Past Tense, Present Imperfect|url=http://
on 16th February 1887, entitled him to take rank in ''Darbar'' immediately after titular ''Nawabs'']].<ref name=GBI>{{cite book|last1=Lethbridge|first1=Roper|title=The golden book of India : a
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
Hello "Sayyid". Please do not get into the habit of slyly adding baseless info under the guise of respectable sunni sources to support your sectarian agenda. No sunni disputes that Muhammad had more legitimate daughters than Fatima. Even your "honoured" cleric majlusi supports this view. The shia view has simply shamelessly evolved over time (like much of their religion) to pursue an agenda that raises the purity and uniqueness of Fatima to new heights, in order to directly raise the glory of their 12 imams that descend from her. This is done even if it involves insulting the Prophet by denying him his own children. This is the modern shia opinion, but it isn't grounded in evidence. I advice you that for the benefit of wikipedia and your own soul (and your alleged descent from the Prophet) that you cease such sly tactics and hopefully we wont be seeing such acts again. Thankyou and please feel free to respond if you seek to clarify anything.58.106.226.134 (talk) 01:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@58.106.226.134: Firstly I fial to understand exactly what edits are you refering to. Secondly (judging from your edits) if you are refering to the para refering book Khulefa and Mulook, then that was not added by me in first place and that para nowhere denies about them being daughter of H.P.(s.a.w.a.) the para questions authenticity of them being married to son(s) of Abu Lahab. Regarding your sentence "The shia view ....", I can say that Sunnis to elivate status of usurper & corrupt Usman try to ascribe Hala's (or some one else's) daughters to H.P.(s.a.w.a.) and I think that is great insult to H.P.(s.a.w.a.). And no one can increase any body's status becuase as in glorious Quran Allah syas wa to izzo mantasha, wa to zillo mantasha. You can find numerous Hadith in Siyah Sittah about highest status of Hz. Fatima Zahra (s.a.) but you can't find any for any of other ascribed daughters, that itself demonstrates special status of Hz. Fatima Zahra (s.a.) which no body else enjoyed (no wife, no daughter, no other women in humankind) after all She(s.a.) is Sayidatul Nisa al alameen wal jannah (Head of women of worlds and paradise) as agreed by all Shia, Sunni, etc.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs17:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Of course you would say that about Uthman & Sunnis having an agenda. But in reality Shia have an infinitely greater reason to have an agenda than Sunnis. Sunnis love the Ahlul-Bayt and the Sahaba. So Sunnis have no agenda against Ali or Fatima etc. Also, apart from the honour of marrying the Prophet's daughters, Sunnis do not then claim that Uthman should have been the 1st Caliph. Shia on the other hand "love" the Ahlul-Bayt but hate the Sahaba even more than those who don't even claim to be Muslims. So the agenda is fully in your court. Besides, the Prophet married a young Aisha who was daughter of your other hated Sahaba AbuBakr, and Hafsa daughter of Umar - the most despised Sahaba for the Shia. So the Prophets familial links with his closest Sahaba is nothing to be surprised about, especially someone as close to the Prophet as Uthman. And thankyou for proving my point that Sunnis have no agenda by quoting Sunnis sources that honour & elevate Fatima.58.106.226.134 (talk) 07:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Love Jihad
I've got some sympathy for the removal of the sources, but probably for a different reason. They are 5 years old and are being used as if they were current.
I'm also guessing that a changed political climate has led to politicians make this accusation more. Dougweller (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@Dougweller: I agree, that the sources are old but outright removal of info & source IMHO is not correct. We may rephrase it bit, to reflect that the conclusion of investigation agencies in cases related to South India were such & such in such & such period/duration/year/etc. Also, the new wave of conspiracy theory is more concentrated in cases in North India but official machinery is outrightly rejecting it. But recent edits are surely POV push, that remove official investigation result and add new chunk of info (based on synthesis of news articles).--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs21:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Barabanki district, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Olympic. 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.
If it's created it should be redirected to the household section, maybe the editor should be told that now. I don't off-hand know any related articles. Dougweller (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Nice try. You try to delegitimise my edits by claiming that i have taken the reference from Sunni hate sites. I would expect nothing less when it concerns edits that don't abide by your agenda. Your action is illegitimate on a number of levels. 1) You have not proven that i took this from Sunni hate sites; you have only speculated. 2) Even if i did take this source from these sites, that in itself doesn't delegitimise my edit because importantly i have taken the reference provided within these sites and not the info within this site. If i had taken the content & info in these sites then you would have an obviously legitimate argument. 3) Ibn Kathir is a legitimate scholar to cite for ones wiki contribution. All i have done is add the info in the book with the cite for the info - nothing more or less. 4) The book i have cited is also notable enough to have its own wiki page article. 5) Please don't accuse me of using hate sites when i have seen some of the references you have used in your edits and some of the ridiculous edits and articles you have created (that belong nowhere except being deleted from Wiki). i strongly suspect that some come from Shia forum hate sites. But, currently, that doesn't really bother me. So, until you can prove the edits you seek to remove are actually the quotes of these contributors of hate sites you have no right to remove them.58.106.237.48 (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
@58.106.237.48: The point is, you have no access to the source(s), (as admitted by you in above comment), then the source is relying on non-RS i.e. hate sites (& that too has been admitted by you), in that case the references and matter based on them are not fit to be included on WP and hence, will be removed.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs03:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
If you actually read my comment then you will clearly see i admitted to no such thing. Read: You try to delegitimise my edits by claiming that i have taken the reference from Sunni hate sites. So you have lied against me. My edit is very simple, but allow me to break it down for you to understand & comprehend: 1) I state in the relevant articles when the Prophets daughter died (i.e. nothing controversial or worthy of being accused of being from hate sites). 2) I give the notable cite for the edit (again, nothing controversial or worthy of being accused of being from hate sites). So you have no right to remove what a Sunni scholar has stated about the death dates of the Prophets daughters. If you have alternate dates then feel free to add them.58.106.237.48 (talk) 04:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
@58.106.237.48: I warn you to maintain civility of the discussion and not use any language which may leade an ANI request agianst the set of IPs being used by you. Regarding, your citation and the source of them, as you have insisted, following is clear proof that they are from non-RS sites, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. You are taking information from above sites but not refering to them instead you are using citations used in them directly, you have simply copy-pasted the content & reference from one of the above sites without crediting them, which is aginst WP citaion policy as you haven't direct access to the Ibn Kathir's book.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs05:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Surely falsehood is ever bound to vanish. Now you can enjoy the indisputable reference given. Or is that website given also a hate site?58.106.237.48 (talk) 06:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
@58.106.237.48: Thats great that ultimately you have taken some pain and got actual book. But still you are doing synthesis based on primary source. But, because you deem it to be good enough to be quoted, will you allow me to use same book and quote from it to enhance the articles of the daughters? If I do so, please don't remove the content which I add because it may not be aligned to your POV but then it'll come from same book of Ibn Kathir which you are using to support your claim. Surely falsehood is ever bound to vanish.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs06:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
You do what gives you satisfaction. You accuse me of POV, yet your own POV agenda is clear: trying to legitimise Fatimah being the only daughter by preventing the realisation that mubahalla was done after the death of all the Prophet's other daughters.58.106.237.48 (talk) 07:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
