User talk:Uanfala/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

You have deleted the description for the meaning of the name ANIRBAN

Hi, You have deleted the description for the meaning of the name ANIRBAN which suggests that "Vishnu also had an another name called Anirban after his Re-incarnation to serve mankind. Undo that again so that the details are visible again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.191.41.90 (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome to add this information back in the article as long as you back it up with a source that is reliable enough. Thanks! – Uanfala 22:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Eran

Regarding Naga... why would you say "obviously not", the list currently contains 2 types of descriptors for coinage, either dynasty/era or type. There is no Naga dynasty (at least I couldn't find one), and the naga are mythological beings which would have been known in that region. I would disagree with the Rajpur Nagas as a target, as that does not fit either of the categories currently in the list. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

It's regarding this, right? When reverting your edit I thought you had just missed the context, but now that you seem to be aware of it I'm confused. Are you really suggesting that the mythological creatures minted coins that were attested in the archaeological record? – Uanfala 21:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

No, what I am suggesting, is just like the "Punch-marked coins" description, it is a description of the coin, rather than the period in which the coins were made. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

This is possible but implausible, and any way we really shouldn't assume stuff like that. – Uanfala 21:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I've had a look again and it seems the most likely target is Nagas of Padmavati. Again, I don't think this link should be "fixed" unless the sources for that part of the text have been consulted. It's not our job to be playing guessing games. – Uanfala 22:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Sound change

Regarding your edit of my new article. I looked into Category:Phonology and noticed that A LOT of pages may be recategorized into Category:Sound changes as well. Can you do this systematically, please, since I guess you have expertise in linguistics (I don't). Staszek Lem (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I have the vague intention of carrying on with the tidying up of the linguistics category structure (as far as I can), and dissipating Category:Phonology would be part of that task. But before that, I think Category:Sound changes would need some reworking (like creating subcategories, or deciding on the division of labour between it and Category:Sound laws). Also, I don't have much expertise in phonology, so I'm probably not the best person for the job. – Uanfala 19:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately the best phonologists don't edit wikipedia :-( Staszek Lem (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Ha, but a few do! Wikipedia's coverage of phonology is I think in an overall better shape than most other branches of linguistics. – Uanfala 20:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Alcove) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Alcove, Uanfala!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

This has been tagged for incoming links and I removed two entries per MOS:DABRL.

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Boleyn, I've placed the redlinks to assist the editors who will go about fixing the incoming links, as most of these links are likely to refer to either of the two redlinked concepts. Of course, this is based on the assumption that these will one day become articles, or at least be soft-redirected to wiktionary. If you disagree with this assumption, you're welcome to repoint all the links to wiktionary. – Uanfala 20:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Syntactic terms

Hi Uanfala.

Re your reversion of my edit to Syntactic terms. You are right of course. I was nervous about it but needed to deorphan it some where it would get attention, and it did. Thanks for the tip, but I am not sure about this either. It seems there might be a gap in articles in this whole broader area. Given your subject area experience you might be able to do better. (By the way, just a semantic point if I may, "summer" is a bit ambiguous with a planet wide audience - sorry could not resist.) Cheers. Eno Lirpa (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes, you're right about the "summer", I haven't thought of that. It's ambiguous, but also not quite up to date anymore (regardless of which side of the planet we're on). About co-construction you're right as well, it doesn't really belong in the "see also" at Pragmatics – this is a way too specific topic to link to from such a general article. I'm not sure there's anywhere we can link from at present. This really isn't my area, but I'm wondering if it might be a good idea to create a navigational template on the topic of conversational techniques. I see potentially eligible topics in Category:Oral communication and Category:Pragmatics. – Uanfala 17:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. If I get the time I might have a look at such - tied up with removing 140,000 orphans at the moment - but every so often one does need some thing different to do ! Eno Lirpa (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, you've probably noticed already, but there are orphans that just can't be deorphaned without significant addition of new content. – Uanfala 23:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Certainly have. Eno Lirpa (talk) 08:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Bernetz River) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Bernetz River, Uanfala!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please add you your sources.

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 06:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

So fucking listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect So fucking. Since you had some involvement with the So fucking redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Prisencolin (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Gandhara

Sorry about that. I must have pressed "rollback" by mistake, but I was intending to press the "thank" button! Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, so that's why. Yes, I've noticed these two buttons are inconveniently positioned so close to each other. Thanks for letting me know! – Uanfala 09:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

unfala why you hate punjabi language

why you hate punjabi language,why do you delete valuable information about punjabi language,you should study about the language/why do you delete dialect section in article punjabi language,it gives just a little introduction about dialects of punjabi language and refers about full article,you have problem with punjabi language and misuse your rights? 116.202.248.62 (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE this user delibrately deletes important material from article punjabi language. 116.202.248.62 (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

It's all very well with important material, but besides being important, the material has to be verifiable against non-partisan sources. – Uanfala 18:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Good catch

Thanks for catching my mistake on American King James Version. It was the first time I'd ever used Twinkle on an AfD, but I'll make sure next time not to target the talk page. Alephb (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Twinkle is a nice tool but the way it doesn't display a page preview before saving does occasionally lead to little errors like this. Well, I guess efficiency comes at a cost. – Uanfala 18:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Bad RM close

You want to edit war over your bad close of a RM listing? I dispute that your close is the right thing to do. Please revert yourself. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry , I should have explained first. You're welcome to try unusual and imaginative ways of alerting RM regulars of DAB deletion discussions, but please bear in mind that a) this might not be needed: AfDs generally receive higher participation than RMs and the DAB delsort is pretty well watched; 2) if you still insist on having the deletion discussion listed at WP:RM you should find a way that doesn't make it appear as though you're actually proposing a move into project space [1] and that doesn't leave silly notices on top of the article [2].

At any rate, I guess you might be aware already, but if you disagree with a close you're generally expected to bring it up with the closer rather than simply revert. – Uanfala 10:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

SFL linguistics category

Hi—any reason you removed this from the category? Tony (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, it's a member of Category:Systemic functional linguistics, which is already included in all relevant specific linguistics categories. I'm working on a project to diffuse Category:Linguistics: ideally there shouldn't be any articles that can't be exhaustively categories under its specific subcategories. Any thoughts? – Uanfala 11:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm not well-versed in categories; but I presume there's some kind of arrow from Cat:Linguistics to Cat:SFL. 13:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Systemic functional linguistics is a member of three categories, all which sit directly under Category:Linguistics, so there are three possibe "paths" for getting from there to Category:Systemic functional linguistics, each taking two clicks. That's even better connected than Category:Generative linguistics. – Uanfala 17:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad to hear that SFL is given greater connection than generative linguistics (which is a rather less settled set of theories). Tony (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Re:The Shina language and Devanagari

Hello User:Uanfala and thanks for your message on my talk page! The research that I've read shows that until very recently (and for the most part today), Shina is a largely unwritten language. Linguists have proposed both a variant of the Perso-Arabic script and Devanagari script to use as the orthography for the language. The cited source states that for the Drasi dialect (which is spoken in India), the linguist B. B. Rajapurohit provided the Devanagari scheme and that "it was noticed that fewer modifications were needed for adopting the Devanagari script" according to the text Shina Phonetic Reader. I hope that this information is helpful and thank you for your continued efforts to improve the article. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, this sounds like something I remember reading in Rajapurohit's own texts. It makes sense. Thanks a lot! – Uanfala 23:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

You are very welcome! I left a comment summarizing these findings on the article's talk page and updated the article with them, in addition to some additional references. I hope this helps and hope you have a great day ahead of you! With regards, Anupam^Talk 05:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Shina

Hi, could you please clarify your stance at the Talk:Shina language page? There seems to be confusion as to what you might think.Willard84 (talk) 07:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh that's become a bit messy. I'm just double-checking the sources and will comment in an hour or two. – Uanfala 09:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Hi, I saw you reverted my edit in Punjabis kindly check Gujarati people, Bengalis, Tamils all them provided same source for population figure. Then why not for punjabis.--223.223.141.253 (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The content that wikipedia has on South Asian languages (and I'd presume, ethno-linguistic groups) is, on average, dismal. The fact that there's rubbish in one article doesn't mean we should have the same kind of rubbish in another. I don't know anything about ethnicities, but at least in the case of Punjabi in Pakistan, we have a source (the CIA factbook) that gives different numbers for the speakers of the language vs. the members of the ethnic group. – Uanfala 20:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Traslation

Hello Uanfala I wolud like to know if you can say me how to translate the Message of Babel for the Huaylas Quechua language Michael junior obregon pozo (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Michael junior obregon pozo! The beginners level userbox is at Template:User qwh-1. You can simply edit the English text that begins with "This user can contribute...." and replace it with its Huaylas Quechua equivalent. If you have any problems with that, or if you'd like to create similar templates for the other levels of Huaylas Quechua, let me know. – Uanfala 08:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Your protection, of a description of editors using a pejorative

What is your issue?  Did you look up the word before you restored it?  The word is talking about an editor, even if no specific editor was originally mentioned, and if you are reading the discussion, a specific case has been mentioned.  And no, it doesn't change the conversation unless changing to a neutral point of view is a change.  Why are you getting involved?  Unscintillating (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It's my revert of this edit that is under question here, right? Hmmm... I'd imagine you know better than me that we don't generally mess about with other people's talk page comments unless there is a good reason. I'm rereading the thread and I still don't see either a mention of a specific editor, nor any description or a hint that could possibly point in the direction of a specific event. Has there been some recent piece of megadrama that everybody knows about and I don't? And even then, the misbehaving phrase is "boneheaded NACs": this is a description of an action (a NAC) rather than the editor(s) (if there are specific editors) who performed it; for example I don't consider myself boneheaded, even though, Gosh!, I've done quite a few boneheaded things. – Uanfala 19:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

First of all, headers are not subject to WP:TPO, partly because they create next-to-impossible-to-delete edit summaries.  You have a point that calling someone's closure stupid is not the same thing as calling an editor stupid.  But again, why are you defending the term?  Stupidity is not a civil metric for a closure, and it is not going to help the conversation.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, given that no reference to a specific editor or event is to be found in sight, I simply don't see the point of trying to get one naughty word out of view. If you really insist on having it removed you can try to replace it with a word with a similar meaning in the context, like "obviously bad", and - to avoid the otherwise inevitable consequence of annoying the original poster - first ask them if they don't mind. Given that the heading has been around for a bit of time, if you change it you might also want to add the old one as an anchor so that links don't get broken. – Uanfala 22:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

If you look it up in Wiktionary, it is listed as slang.  IMO, you are defending verbiage.  As for the mention of a related case, look for the words, "This is a similar situation to the above, but the above was a clearly involved editor."  Unscintillating (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

sfnm

Hi Uanfala, I noticed you use sfnm. Brave. But I would worry that they would be hard to maintain when other editors less experienced might come and muck them up. I think it is perfectly practical to use <ref>{{sfn}}; {{sfn}}</ref>. All that complexity doesn't seem worh the trouble. Just a thought. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I loved this template when I saw it, but it definitely complicates the code. I'm tempted to suggest that it might actually be a good idea to have the code complicated, to make up for the beguiling simplicity of the topic, but that isn't really going to work. I'll let that stay for a day or two and unless a better solution turns up, I'll change these to <ref>{{harvnb}}; {{harvnb}}</ref> (I don't think {{sfn}} works within ref tags). – Uanfala 21:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, right. ref-harvnb does the trick. Loved those Ig Nobel Prizes. May be we should shoot for one! Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Wallah

Hello
Thanks for clearing up the mess I made with these pages. Must have been near my bedtime! I had thought, where the article said that "Wallah" was a surname, that there would be some biography pages for notable Wallahs, but I couldn't find any. Anyway, my apologies, and thanks, Swanny18 (talk) 11:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem, this happens to me too. And the article is really unclear, I think it needs some decent reworking (and possibly merging with -wal). – Uanfala 11:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

MOS:DABMENTION

You mentioned in project talk that you believe this guideline is often misinterpreted and that "There are all manner of cases where it's acceptable to include a term when it doesn't itself appear in the target article." I didn't want to disrupt the discussion over there, but was hoping you could explain that a little further. I usually consider having a topic at least mentioned somewhere on the wiki to be an absolute minimum requirement for inclusion on a dab page. These pages are supposed to guide the reader to an article that has information on the topic they wanted, so why would we link them to an article that says nothing about it? -- Fyrael (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

One, there's alternative (or obsolete or informal...) spellings (or romanisations): it would generally be silly to include all variants in the article (esp. if the variation is trivial or predictable) and nonetheless including the alternative spelling on the dab page is something few people would object to. A slightly murkier area is relevant foreign names: for example Aloo contains an entry that say the term means "potato" in many South Asia languages: this entry gives the reader everything they needed to know, they're unlikely to click through to the generic article on potatoes and it's immaterial whether that article mentions aloo or not. And there are other instances where the dab entry contains all the information we currently have on a topic, though this can be more controversial. For example, I think it's pretty harmless to include entries about currently redlinked, but otherwise notable, places linking to the area the place is part of (as in Fooo, a village in Ba District). And if there are for example two villages in two different places with the same name and we only have content on one of them, I think we definitely should include an entry for the other one: whether mentioned somewhere or not, the entry at least signals the existence of this place so that the reader looking for the Foo village will know that the one we currently happen to have an article about might not necessarily be the one they need.

All in all, a strict and literal application of DABMENTION presumes an absolute division between pages that have content (articles) and pages that solely help with navigation (dab pages). This is mostly the case, and there are all manners of good reasons for that, but I don't think the boundary between the two types of pages can absolutely always remain impermeable. Otherwise I agree that DABMENTION usually is the absolute minimum: there's all kinds of stuff that is mentioned but that isn't worthy of inclusion in a dab page. – Uanfala 21:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Isn't that Aloo example exactly what MOS:DABOTHERLANG says to avoid? From there:

Avoid adding foreign words or phrases that are merely translations of an English term. For example, do not include:

• Tambo, a Japanese word (田んぼ) for rice paddy

-- Fyrael (talk) 21:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Most foreign-language terms for generic things shouldn't be included in dab pages. But some should be: if the foreign term is likely to be something a reader would encounter in the English-speaking world. Even if it weren't used generically in South Asian English, aloo would probably qualify as it's found in the names of so many dishes. – Uanfala 22:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation page

Just FYI, regarding Jatt, using the presence or absence of a particular category to determine whether a particular page is a dab is an obsolescent technique, and there is no guarantee that dab-fixing tools will not recognize this as a disambiguation page in the (near) future. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the heads up. Will in the future the tools be looking for {{Disambiguation}} in the wikitext of the page? I assume the dab template will continue to work as it does now and place the page into a category, because that category is used for tracking dab pages for the article alerts. – Uanfala 20:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Hindustan disambugiation page

I had to undo a few of your edits to the disambiguation page for Hindustan. Please let me know if the page needs more changes. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

One of them just undid your and my edits and has been edit warring on the main page as well. I've stopped for now but am considering alternate actions. The discussion pages only get responses once in a blue moon or even ignored, but if you have any advice to offer, it could be appreciated.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

NadirAli, you see, you've received a reply on the article's talk page a few hours after posting there. That article appears relatively well watched, so you can expect enough participation for a discussion. Also, a general piece of advice: before making any major changes to an article, it's always a good idea to have a look at the talk page: the matter might have already been discussed before (as it has in this case). – Uanfala 10:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Fundamental metric tensor, I'm not sure I see what you were trying to do there. Were you reverting all edits that stood in the way of getting to NadirAli's previous edit, which is what seems to be the one you wanted to revert? Well, in that case, you can simply go whatever old revision of the page you want to restore, click "Edit" and then click "Save": this will save you having to make a large number of reverts (which send a lot of notifications). Also, when taking the initiative to restore an old version of a page, I think it's generally expected that you will try to incorporate any intervening good edits to it. – Uanfala 09:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Just noting that I mostly agree with your edit and the dab page is now in an overall better shape. – Uanfala 09:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Hey, congratulations on finally winning the Saraiki battle! Kautilya3 (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I could do with a pint! Thank you for weighing in though! – Uanfala 20:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

You worked hard for this and opened some eyes here, including mine. Cheers!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  13:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Enjoy your pint!  — Amakuru (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

LX

I've semi pp'd your page for a little while as LX is being a nuisance now, more than usual I mean. If you don't want the protection then let me know or if I'm not around ask any other admin to remove it. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 16:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Just as a note, the time limit is currently set to indef. I can't say whether it's strictly unnecessary (certain people do tend to attract vandals) but it's certainly not "a little while". Primefac (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Meh, it was meant to be 12 hours like I did on my talk page, changing now. —SpacemanSpiff 17:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Cool. Reading back it sounds like there was a lot of sarcasm in my tone, but it was entirely curious and not querulous. Primefac (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your ongoing help. The protection was a good idea, LX does become a nuisance sometimes (although I've never found his rampages offensive – for instance, his new-found penchant for referring to editors' "mummies" is somewhat endearing, isn't it?). – Uanfala 17:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rawi (Egyptian history Magazine) (November 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Clarkcj12 was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Rawi (Egyptian history Magazine) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Clarkcj12 (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Uanfala, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Clarkcj12 (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Clarkcj12, I think this message should be sent to the creator of the draft. All I've done about it is fix its broken AfD submission template, and I hadn't anticipated the script to pick me as the recipient of any submission-related communication. – Uanfala 18:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• On a side note, as far as I can tell the article provides as much context as you could ever hope for in an article about an academic journal. If there's any potential problem with the draft, my opinion is that it could only have to do with establishing notability. – Uanfala 18:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello

Hello there, i hope you're having a great day. First of all, i thank you for not deleting my page immediately. I had an incident with another user who claimed my native language is a hoax too, unfortunately I'm working on how to give reliable sources, since my language has been dying due to preference of the dominant languages of the region. (Also because my father died this month, that's why there are only 4 speakers and only 3 of us are natives),it was first spoken in turkmenistan, then turkey and now me and my mother are living in Mexico. Since I'm a native speaker i can of course provide all the information about it, I'm working on a dictionary for my language and i could upload a video of me speaking it if needed. Anyway, i was told my page was deleted before because i edited other pages using "blatant hoaxes" about my language, i understand i should not modify those pages without links and that's why i decided to make the page without any ties to other pages, i need this page to help me get a more detailed view of my language, if this doesn't convince you then give me at least some time to finish it, print it and afterwards delete it, but i want to document my language, it is important for me, i don't want it to die. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeþ Eźabrekın (talk • contribs) 14:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me, Aeþ Eźabrekın. I appreciate your effort to publicize the existence of this highly unusual language and I'm looking forward to seeing what the expanded article would look like, but to be honest it still looks as though it is a hoax. Has there really been nothing published about it at all? This is not by itself unusual for a newly "discovered" minority language, but then the article implies a long historical tradition, and it states for example that the language had a writing system in the 11th century. Where did you learn that from? – Uanfala 17:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Reply to Uanfala about the arkhar language

I'm sorry for my late answer, but i was working and couldn't reply until now. I'm pretty sure there might be at least some uyghur scripts about us, since we borrowed their writing system. To be honest, i was only told my grandfather that our writing was ancient, but i have nothing to prove it, i could modify that if needed or delete that part, because i'm not sure myself if it was done at that century or not, anyway, the dates are indeed after the uyghurs had their alphabet, so it sounds logical to me. I could search for resources in uyghur this month, i have a kind of decent knowledge of the language, but i didn't have enough knowledge to search for my language in uyghur.

EDIT : i've read about G3 for "Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes" and found out " Articles about notable hoaxes are acceptable if it is clear that they are describing a hoax." I was thinking that, for the sake of my language, and at the cost of my pride, could i delete all not verifiable historic information and write something like "the arkhar conlang" or something similar? i really need the page to keep existing, i've tried searching for resources and i've failed, all i can do is identify my page as a hoax (even if it is not) but clarify that in the main page, so that it could remain on the internet. these are my terms to avoid the deletion of my language's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeþ Eźabrekın (talk • contribs) 02:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeþ Eźabrekın (talk • contribs) 17:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Request

Please stop following my edits around, I'm sure you mean well, but it feels like WP:STALKING. Störm (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just monitoring Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan/Article alerts. Did you get the impression that I'm following you around because I've just declined two of your speedy deletion nominations? Anyone else would have declined these too (you had already nominated them at AfD, and A7 is only for articles without any credible claims of significance), so if you'd like, I could try to leave such procedural actions for other people to do. – Uanfala 11:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Uanfala , Please make Corrections to Punjab , KPK and Balochistan Populations as well , there are Fake fig in there Population status as well, I will provide url links , Thanks.Kash201313 (talk) 13:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Hi Uanfala, You suggested adding category tags to redirect pages, so I've given it a go. I read a bunch of help pages and edited Five star. There are a bunch of redirect pages with different spellings, so I tagged most of them with {{R from alternative spelling}} and one of them with {{R from CamelCase}}. Could you please give a quick glance at what I did on this page and let me know if it is correct? Thanks for your help, Leschnei (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Leschnei. I'm afraid I'm not the best person to help with that: for me the whole redirect categorisation business still looks like an arcane art. For more meaningful feedback you can ask at the talk page of WP:RCAT. Now, looking at the Five Star redirects, I can say that I mostly agree with your tags. Five-star should be {{R from modification}} rather than {{R from alternative spelling}}, and similarly Five Stars seems better placed in {{R from plural}} and {{R from other capitalisation}}. And yes, redirects can have more than a single category: 5-star for example would ideally have {{R from alternative spelling}} and {{R from plural}}. You can make stacked rcat templates look prettier by putting them inside {{Rcat shell}}.

You can read more about the various rcats at Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages. Does it all seem sort of over the top? It seems so to me: frankly, I don't see the purpose of most of these categories, though there probably is a good rationale behind each one. There's one respect in which they're important though: most of these templates sort the redirect, directly or indirectly, into either Category:Unprintworthy redirects or Category:Printworthy redirects. The distinction between the two is whether they'll show up in a printed index of wikipedia – hardly relevant in this time and age, but they have now been co-opted into determining whether the redirects would be shown in the search box drop-down suggestions (so for example redirects that are tagged with {{R from misspelling}} will not be displayed). And yes, there's the potential use of the several dab-specific redirect categories for indicating that the redirect intentionally points to the dab page (though I don't think that at present this makes any practical difference anywhere). Anyway, if you enjoy tagging then go ahead and have fun, but if you don't, then don't worry about it. – Uanfala (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions; I'll go through them to see if I can make sense of them and make changes, as needed. I agree with you on the fuzziness of categorization - I've avoided it for the most part because I can never figure out how to determine the appropriate categories for any given article. I mostly leave it to people whose minds work that way, but every once in a while I think that I should try to understand it better. I appreciate your very thorough response. Leschnei (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Citations on Khai khrop

Hello Uanfala - in response to the message you left on my talk page: I am not going to insert Wikipedia-style citations in Khai khrop. I patrol a lot of articles and I do not know anything about Khai khrop. I much prefer fixing and adding references in subjects I know in areas of Canada, sports, and others. I happened to encounter the article because it appeared in a list of New Articles that needed checking.

Also, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Citing sources, especially the sections starting at Wikipedia:INLINECITE and WP:CITESTYLE if you have not done so already. If you don't feel qualified to add citations and references (it's not difficult to learn) then please leave the tag for somebody else to find, and to thereby improve the quality of the article. Thank you, PKT(alk) 16:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: deliberately copying and pasting text twice in Hurst Castle. It's not helpful and disrupts other editors. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, so that's what the IP had done! Sorry, I just had a knee-jerk reaction to the labelling as vandalism of an edit that seemed, in the diff window, like the addition of a perfectly decent text. 13:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

No prob's. I've made exactly the same mistake with diff windows myself in the past...! Hchc2009 (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Please come and help...

Should MoS shortcut redirects be sorted to certain specific maintenance categories? An Rfc has been opened on this talk page to answer that question. Your sentiments would be appreciated!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  17:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but I'm not that involved in rcat stuff, so the issue there is a bit too arcane for me. – Uanfala (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

S'okay, thank you for your candor and Happy Holidays!  Paine  10:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:Challenge Advisory

Hi, in response to your edit summary (huh?) yes it was a bit of an odd one, but clearly not meant to be a template which is why I marked is as a "test" (the editor was obviously trying to create a draft/article), and I would suggest a template should not be a redirect to an article as you have made it? Cheers, Melcous (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, my "huh" was more as a response to your use of WP:T2: at first sight it might appear that the precise speedy deletion criterion used doesn't matter, as long as some (specified or not specified) criterion applies. However, placing a CSD tag on a page using Twinkle has the side effect of leaving a message on the creator's talk page. In this case, the talk page message basically accuses them of blatantly misrepresenting policy (because that's what T2 is). Of course, the user wasn't anywhere near misrepresenting policy, and they will never understand why we're accusing them of this. The user will most probably just walk away form wikipedia thinking what a Kafqaesque place it is (let's leave aside the question of how accurate this perception will be: we want new users to first get hooked on editing and only then find out how horrible we can be as a community, no?). Now thinking of it, I think G2 is almost as bad: calling a full-fledged, well-written and decently referenced article an "editing test" is an insult.

Anyway, you could have used WP:G6, which covers pages in the wrong namespace. But that would have left them equally confused. If they're obviously trying to create a draft, then instead of shooting them dead, we could, well, help them create the draft. In this case, all it takes is to move the page into the appropriate namespace. However, it turns out the creator had started a new draft on the same topic. Redirecting to this new draft was the simplest course of action: if the draft is rejected it will ultimately get deleted per G13 and the redirect will then go more or less automatically. If the draft is accepted then will need to keep the older version in order to preserve attribution: in this case, the right thing to do would be a history merge. You've tagged this redirect with WP:R3: but that criterion doesn't apply: R3 is for redirects created as redirects, and not for pages with history: otherwise anything and everything could be speedied per R3 as long as it's turned into a redirect immediately before tagging. Now I see that this has been deleted, but it would have been deleted if you'd used any criterion really: the admin who did it does seem to have a habit for deleting anything regardless. – Uanfala (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

	Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year 2018!
	Thank you for all the hard work and effort you put into Wikipedia. God bless! Onel5969 TT me 03:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you too, and happy holidays! – Uanfala (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

How to do I get self links

Hi Uanfala, Why what?, How do I get self links?

Please give me an instruction please?

These appear in bold because they're self links. In my opinion, Why would i want to get self links back to itself?

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by EIBaluyot2003 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC) 

Hi, EIBaluyot2003. Judging from your post at Talk:That it seemed to me like your were trying to edit that article and insert there a link to itself. I might be wrong. But then I'm not sure I get what you were trying to do. Would you be able to give more details? – Uanfala (talk) 13:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, how do I get self links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EIBaluyot2003 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, you can't and you shouldn't, see Help:Self link. – Uanfala (talk) 14:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

That's can and should not can't and shouldn't

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, Uanfala. AfC submissions Random submission ~8 weeks 1,850 pending submissions to update I've seen you editing recently and you seem like an experienced Wikipedia editor. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. After requesting to be added to the project, note that reviewing is not mandatory, and can be done at your convenience. You can read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I saw your post on ChrissyMad's talk, and you might as well get the script to do it easier. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm afraid I'm not going to have the time for any systematic involvement in AfC. – Uanfala (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)