User talk:Bookku/Archive 2

@Umakant Bhalerao: It is strange without me asking some one else putting for review ? Rather than wasting time ** on reviewing why can't one join improving the article. Unfortunately your name sounds to be South Asian and any one in touch with South Asian news with common sense can tell that topic article can grow better in article namespace with better attention than prison of drafts.

Bookku (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Are you still getting the technical error? It looks like you have successdully started the page, I would be glad to help.--Pharos (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi. These are generally frowned upon, especially when it involves editors whose editing history regarding the article/s seem largely tangential. Thanks. El_C 11:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  Hello, Bookku. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Expressions of Muslim and Ex-Muslim Women through media interactions, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bookku I’m just looking at your new article and it shows up as having a high likelihood of being a copyright violation (see here). I suppose that the online materials that it closely resembles may themselves gave been copied from earlier Wikipedia articles, but I thought I’d better point it out in case there was anything you wanted to modify in the article text. All the best Mccapra (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mccapra: Thanks for pointing out. Date of Slide share seems Published on Nov 26, 2010 and this Wikipedia article Black Sea edit dif on 25 Nov 2010 already shows to have the content. I will try to check status of Black Sea article history for 30th October 2010 too for better confirmation.

Thanks and warm regards Bookku (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mccapra: I checked Wikipedia article Black Sea edit dif on 28 Octo 2010 as additional check and Wikipedia article Black Sea already seems to have the content. Still if you suggest I will make some more changes in content but I suppose since Wikipedia seems to had content already so we have enough breathing space to make the changes at our convenience. Thanks and warm regards Bookku (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

No need I think that all seems clear. Mccapra (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Bookku,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Black Sea climate and ecology for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

John B123 (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The content was copied from Black Sea. You can help patrollers by proper attribution when copying within Wikipedia in the future. In fact it's required by the terms of our license.— Diannaa (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC) @Diannaa: Thanks, most of Copy paste edits I do take care as you can see I mentioned the attribution in later three edits but some how missed in one unfortunately. Still I will make point to be more vigilant next time. Regards Bookku (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

It's unfortunate the patrollers missed that. In fact you mentioned it repeatedly :( — Diannaa (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

They probably missed it as it was not done on the first edit. I didn't spot it at first either.— Diannaa (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

  Hello, Bookku. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Civil life in conflict zones, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, with the class assignment tags placed on the discussion page, the effort to clean up this page may be optimized if we wait until the classes are done. Gender Roamer (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes you are right. we can always come back later. Thanks for your inputs. and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Bookku, it looks like this draft will be finished quicker than other drafts you're working on. Maybe we should focus on this one for now? Is there anything you can advise me on for expansion in terms of the draft? Gender Roamer (|talk) 21:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gender Roamer: I am traveling so some delays are likely from my side, but I would be very keen to work more on that topic too as suggested by you. Lately one user Banksboomer seem to working on similar subtopic Forced conversion of minority girls in Pakistan.

In any case I would work on the topics let them separate or merged either way.

Many thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

All right, and I see how merging might be the ideal thing to do once we can look at how everything has come together. Gender Roamer (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, merging is a good idea Banksboomer (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Banksboomer. "Forced conversion of minority girls in Pakistan" is the bigger page right now. I'm assuming we'd merge it under "Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan" because the latter is for the general topic. All right, so I have a concern. If we merge right now, the page would be mostly about girls. Gender Roamer (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I looked at the Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan page again. Is this mostly happening to girls? If that's how it is, then it's all right the page would be mostly about them. Gender Roamer (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I think "Forced conversion of minority girls in Pakistan" should be kept as a separate page... because it is about a gross human rights violation happening only to girls in Pakistan. The Draft "Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan" may be merged with the page "Religious discrimination in Pakistan" or "Human rights in Pakistan". Banksboomer (talk) 07:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Banksboomer, oh, all right. I thought you were agreeing to merge "Forced conversion of minority girls in Pakistan" with "Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan." Thank you for clearing up your position. Gender Roamer (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  Hello, Bookku. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Comparison of rights and limitations of Muslim wives, female slaves and concubines, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

  Hello, Bookku. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Criticism of Edward Said's Orientalism, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

  Hello, Bookku. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Superstitions in Buddhist societies, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I wish I have an additional user name User:ArticleExpansionPropeller

Bookku (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

testing I am looking for article expansion volunteers. (talk) 10:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  Hello, Bookku. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Slavery in Mecca and Medina, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

When you want to give a Third Opinion, just remove the listing from the listing page giving an edit summary like "Took Talk:Narendra_Modi; list is empty". "Took" will be understood to mean "took to give an opinion". But the 3O instructions say to remove the listing when you take it, not after you give the opinion. I've removed Talk:Narendra_Modi for you, so be sure to give an opinion since you've indicated on that talk page that you intend to do so. If you change your mind about giving an opinion, please restore that listing and inform the disputants at the article talk page. Thank you for helping out at 3O! Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC) (long-time 3O volunteer)

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Inter-Services Intelligence has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article British Pakistanis has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

I see you intend to update the article. Having gone through it, there is a massive amount of work to be done and, it turns out, it would probably have been more useful to do a copy edit after that work is done, since so much of the current article will be revised. I should probably have suggested this earlier.

Good luck with the article moving forward.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey. Just noting that you should feel free to let me know if in, say, a few days your comments regarding #En masse public molestation and sexual violence against women don't get a reply from disputant/s of the opposite camp. In that event, I'm likely to just convert the full protection into a longer semiprotection (per WP:COMMUNICATE). BTW, Bookku, your sig is exceedingly long, to the point of distraction. Please consider shortening it. Thanks. El_C 13:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Thanks for taking note of the issue. Once the case police investigation gets over and news goes out of sight attacks on Wikipedia article will hopefully get reduced. So personally I am not in hurry to add the content, as of now I am just updating refs as they become available. (Currently deleted section in the article was added by some other anon user).

I am taking note of your second suggestion. warm regards Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Another comment: the sources all talk about the assault as taking place in Greater Iqbal Park, with no mention of the tower, so it appears that the assault should either be mentioned in the article about the park, or should be a separate article, mentioned and linked from the park article. It certainly appears to be an incident which ought to be described in the encyclopedia, somewhere. PamD 19:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@PamD: Thanks for discussing.

Dawn news report: In the first information report (FIR) registered at the Lorry Adda police station, a copy of which is available with Dawn.com, the complainant stated that she, along with six companions, were filming a video near Minar-e-Pakistan on Independence Day when around 300 to 400 people "attacked us"....She said that she and her companions made a lot of effort to escape from the crowd. Observing the situation, the park's security guard opened the gate to the enclosure around Minar-e-Pakistan, the FIR quotes her as saying..."However, the crowd was huge and people were scaling the enclosure and coming towards us..

Samaa.tv report is more specific: A still from the video of the mob that attacked the woman on August 14, 2021 at Greater Iqbal Park and Minar-e-Pakistan....The incident took place on the public holiday Saturday at the Greater Iqbal Park at the Minar-e-Pakistan monument. The victim said that she was at the Minar-e-Pakistan with her friends to make a video for her YouTube channel when suddenly more than 300 to 400 men attacked them. The victim said when she and her friends tried to get away from the crowd, the guards at the Minar opened the gate of the fence and they went inside..The men jumped over the fence and surged towards us and started...

Even Prime Minister of Pakistan Imran Khan referred incidence in his speech as Minar-e-Pakistan incidence.

It is almost a two hour thing so more details will emerge as police investigation and court cases move forward. Again Pakistan does have track record of victim blaming and also window dressing media but same time over a period of time scholarly academic books also keep coming up and visible written and street activism from women's movements and civil society. so let us see how things move forward and kind of references keep becoming available.

Pl. do suggest. Thanks

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, and sorry to intrude, but you just used one of my favorite words in a way that is unfamiliar to me! On the Fringe Theories noticeboard, you mentioned "alarmist defenestration." I feel like this word is having quite a moment, though it is likely just me noticing it. That said, I am curious--what does it mean to you here? Note, I am very much a language descriptivist, so I am NOT saying your usage is incorrect. But for me, who pretty strictly associates this word with "something thrown from a window," I am genuinely interested in this use. Do you mean it here as "throwing aside?" Thanks for putting up with my silly question. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: Greetings, It is fallacious propaganda misleading public at large to think that topic of Superstition ought to be limited to domain of folklore; as if fields of Skepticism, rationality, Human rights and science have no concerns at all.

I used the word 'defenestration' for strongly emphasizing that concerns and authority of domains of Skepticism, rationality, Human rights and science are being thrown aside and usurped for ulterior motives.

And oh ya on Wikipedia uncomfortable sources of cited by opposite side are thrown out of window in similar manner word 'defenestration' connotes

I expected some response to the word since soliciting some response was purpose of applying the word, but I did not expect response from linguistics side and that too so prompt! :)) I know 'defenestration' was not perfect but I wanted some strong word for expression, and that spurt of moment I could not remember any other. You can very well suggest me better one.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for satisfying my curiosity! I expected that was the gist of things, but the confirmation is much appreciated. Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Bookku, an article on "Irrational beliefs" would be an important topic for an encyclopedia article. In fact, Wikipedia is a particularly good example of an encyclopedia which could be improved by having such an article. Looking at the draft article, I can see that the complexities of organizing an article on "Irrational beliefs" is proving to be complicated. However, I have a good and useful idea here. Particularly looking at the section "Evolutionary and cultural determinants": here we have two (and I'm certain that there are at least a few more than few more) categories proposed, "anthropological views" and "epistemic rationality". What has worked for me on Wikipedia sometimes in the past is to approach a complex topic by developing a hierarchically arranged group of articles. "Irrational beliefs" would be the main article, the other articles would be supportive and more specialized. Simultaneously developing articles such as (something like) "Anthropological views on irrational beliefs" or "Epistemic rationality and irrational beliefs" or so on would likely be a useful technique as part of a process of an the overall goal of creating a good "Irrational beliefs" article. The approach of doing an major article and several more specialized articles would help to distribute the work in a more efficient way, rather than trying to just do one major and comprehensive article. It may seem counter intuitive that more articles would be easier than one; however, in my experience the best approach may be to simultaneously develop several articles that will link together and support each other, while also allowing somewhat independent development of the topic according to differing disciplinary approaches or other specialized aspects of the general topic. The subject of irrational beliefs should not be ignored, and I look forward toward seeing the fruit of our efforts towards developing a good and useful encyclopedia. Dcattell (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Dcattell: Term sounds very usual but I did not know it's larger scope. I did land on the topic of 'irrational belief' accidentally while researching for some other topic. Your reply has given me way to go ahead and additional confidence indeed. We will start working accordingly. Requesting and looking forward to your continued valued support and contributions.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Draft talk:Aroosa Alam, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Maniik ^{🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me.} 04:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi there's a Request for Comment at Talk:Islam in Finland#Survey, please provide input since you have been involved in the discussion around Islamic radicalization in Finlan on the article talk page. Regards, A Thousand Words (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I've restored this to draft space at Draft:Holiest sites in Sufi Islam, per your request at Deletion Review. If you'd like to change the title of the draft then you can move it to a new title the same way as you would move any other page. For future reference you don't actually need to go to deletion review to get an article like this restored to draft space, WP:REFUND will handle uncontroversial requests like that and they are done much more quickly (within a day or two instead of a week). Deletion Review is generally for when you think the page was incorrectly deleted in the first place. Hut 8.5 11:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  Hello, Bookku. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Muslim and Islamic Feminism in India, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  Hello, Bookku. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Female slavery in Al-Andalus, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  Hello, Bookku. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sexual politics in south Asia, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey Bookku,

I find that sometimes your comments are not indented properly and it kinda breaks the flow of conversation. I would appreciate it, if you could take greater care with that, especially in long conversations. Thanks! VR _talk 14:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Thanks for pointing out if I have missed out this time. I shall take care. Rgds Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

  Hello, Bookku. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Women's rights in Muslim societies, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Imho, Wikipedia is a WP:WORKINPROGRESS and it could be moved from Draft into an article ... that's done by simply moving the page, isn't it? A Thousand Words (talk) 06:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Its a concern over an accusation upon respectful Prime Minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan. Booku has published non researched reason for the increased rate of divorces in Pakistan. Prime Minister could be a reason for making marriages (Nikkah) more easy as he follows a respectful religion(Deen e Islam) but there's nothing to do with the divorce rate among population of Pakistan. Its people personal wish and always there are some personal reasons behind such deciaions. You are welcome to visit Pakistan, and research over this issue with honesty. Thank You! 59.103.24.109 (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Greetings

a) In article Divorce in Pakistan there is no accusation against Imran Khan

b) It is actually mention of Imran Khan that who has accused Hollywood and Bollywood more than once, multiple references are available. If you can understand Urdu listen Imran Khan recent 10th October 2021 speech from 32 minute onward available on YouTube.

C) If you really live in Pakistan and understand Urdu and follow him how come you don't know what Imran Khan speaks openly in Pakistan's national language Urdu ?

d) On Wikipedia we write with references. Please keep checking up news media of Pakistan itself and international media and Academic research books and journals if any mistakes contact them not Wikipedia editors. If Imran Khan speaks wrong then contact Imran Khan and not the Wikipedia.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 11:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, can you check the situation in this article? I think we really need a third opinion to edit an edit war. You might want to check User talk:Каракорум#Please use English in edit summaries first. This user has been making Russian nationalist edits and calling people who revert his edits as his "opponents". Now they reverted my and other editors' edits at attempting to fix that horrible nationalist POV article calling them "strange edits", and when I undid this act of vandalism it seems they have blamed me for WP:EDITWAR and WP:BATTLEGROUND, which I say is ironic since that's exactly what they have been doing. I think we need a third opinion to avoid an edit war, so can you check that? Adigabrek^Talk   18:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Adigabrek and Каракорум:

Greetings,

Thanks for showing confidence in me

I suggest/ request both of you to take take the content dispute to article talk page and discuss the same section by section, line by line, point by point.

IMO Such are long time content disputes, avoiding any edit war and personalizing of the dispute and focusing on content related difference of opinion will be helpful to both of you.

My exposure to history of conflicts is usually limited in point of view of women's rights but I will help you till I have knowledge. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history is an active page you can seek more help from there at a latter stage.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

User Adigabrek accuses me of Russian nationalism, although he himself does not actually hide that he is a Circassian nationalist. I would like to thank colleague Bookku for his adequate understanding of the situation. If there is something to discuss, I am ready to do it. But this must be done before adding or deleting any information. Каракорум (talk) 05:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Adigabrek and Каракорум:

Personally I do not see any issues with positive nationalism with open minded outlook. Every one has some baby to save and dirty water to point out and that should be okay and not too difficult to deal with if we decide to remain open minded towards each other's reasonable concerns, and we all need that sort of flexibility on platforms like Wikipedia. In global human history as there are achievements and good parts to speak on as there were difficult pain point parts too. Truth and reconciliation is slow but the best process and discussing with references with each other and understanding concerns in Wikipedia perspective will help at least to an extent on this platform, me think so. We few individuals or Wikipedia articles do not make or break neither the history nor the society. Let us negotiate but do not stretch too far.

Let us move on towards content dispute by mentioning say 2–2 difference of opinion on content from each side and see which easier one you can resolve among yourself remaining we can seek help from other expert editors in due course.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 07:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

"User Adigabrek accuses me of Russian nationalism, although he himself does not actually hide that he is a Circassian nationalist."

My identity in real life is irrelevant, I don't make POV nationalist edits on Wikipedia, someone neutral to this discussion can check. With this logic, we must blame Gay people who write about LGBT, as they support LGBT organisation in real life. This is foolish, we judge by actions and not identities. (unless it's a conflict of interest) There are rules here and you and I should follow them. My accusations are based on your actions. Peace and I hope you're sincere that you don't intend POV nationalism. Adigabrek^Talk   09:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Каракорум: please explain the reasoning behind your actions instead of trying to Ad hominem at me, so we can solve the issue. Adigabrek^Talk   09:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• I noticed that you repeatedly use the term "Russian nationalist", both here and here and here. It looks like bias on your part. Questions also arise: What is the North Caucasian Army? Is this Shamil's army in Chechnya and Dagestan? Or the Circassian army? Or does it mean both? A very strange phrase for the militias of various tribes. It is worth clarifying how widely this term is used. Another question is why were the images removed from the preamble? Каракорум (talk) 10:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  Hello, Bookku. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Amina Dawood Al-Mufti, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that https://www.un.org/en/ga/sixth/75/pdfs/statements/int%20terrorism/01mtg%20nordic.pdf is no longer active. Do you have the exact title of the document so I can search for it? In the future it's safest to post link into The Wayback Machine (see this link) so the PDF or webpage is archived. Have a nice day, A Thousand Words (talk) 05:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I think your suggestion on writing about violent extremism in the Nordic countries is a sound one - do you have sources that treat the Nordic countries or Scandinavia as a whole? I was already thinking about creating the Violent extremism in Sweden article where I know of a few sources to use. Like this one by Swedish Security Service although written in Swedish. In the past, I fleshed out the Terrorism in Denmark article from a redirect into a standalone article. So far, I've been pursuing a bottom-up method by writing about individual countries as I found sources for those. If you have sources for a top-down method I am happy to do it that way instead. What do you think? A Thousand Words (talk) 06:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@1Kwords:

What I am basically suggesting is as strategy. Once the censoring echo chamber knows there are other encyclopedic tools to address issues they will harass lesser.

My obsrvation has been, basically pro censorship echo chambers use WP:Synth and WP:CoatRack as their 'strategy of impediment' even where reliable sources are available; IDK to what extent Wikipedia:Summary style articles are supposed to need sources explicitly covering whole affair.

My second observation is, for an example Finland is a small project where as religion XYZ is project having more attention creates a systemic imbalance against smaller project users edits. So smaller project user need to search balancing some where. Are you getting my point

In any case we don't need explicit sources covering all nordic countries at draft level collaborative entry, we can split that later before taking to main space if needed. I always do invite users for collaboration in writing at drafts and articles. Since because people having skill of writing with proper research like you and me are very few and far between, So we can avoid to be alone and we can focus on writing while others can secure content from censorship. And we can avoid engaging too much in frustrating talk page discussions or even in any revert wars.

Last but not least for example Draft:Women's rights in Muslim societies would be valid article as Summary style article just by importing content from all the related articles. But not surprisingly echo chamber has already opposed possibility of such article for obvious reason. Their love for religion is very phoney.

For example I made a review request for the article Islamic marriage contract or in case of writing on Sufi shrines no one turns up.

So I also will not take Draft:Women's rights in Muslim societies to main article space until I get sufficient assurance that I will not need to waste my time on talk page discussion. I shall rather wait till sufficient other users themselves request to bring the article in mainspace and handle talk page and censorship and revert gaming. I prefer to preserve more of writers time for writing.

Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mcphurphy and Grufo: You both are good research encyclopedists. Rather than spending time on 'revert wars with echo chamber' I invite you both once more to work on various drafts and save energy and time. Thanks

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

There never will be assurance that your time won't be wasted, the only thing that can be done is to not engage with the censors, they really love to write long incoherent responses on talk pages. In so doing, they're wasting their own time. Imho the lesser of two evils is that if an article is moved out of the draft space, then it will at least get read by the public but at the expense of time wasted by the censorship faction. I use the quote field of references to show how the information is relevant, like on this occasion just recently. Nevertheless, I respect your approach and will happily support you in your efforts. How can I help? Regarding sources, which languages are you comfortable working with? A Thousand Words (talk) 05:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bookku: Thanks for your appreciation and your contributions. As long as who wants to hide that sexual slavery is sexual slavery keeps bringing the same incorrect motivations in circles it does not take much effort to go back to the initial facts, as all the apparent steps away from them are indeed... apparent – either rethorical fallacies or reiterated WP:OR. You are really free to invite interested users in the discussion. But you should be aware that we might be dealing with an organized political party that edits Wikipedia in unison, not with single sparse editors. --Grufo (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@1Kwords: Thanks for your positive response. We can work on content together in areas of common interest including the topic we were discussing earlier. I am in travel now as I get free enough will get back to you. Thanks and best wishes. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Aurat (Malaysian and Indonesian nomenclature for Intimate parts in Islam). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 9#Aurat (Malaysian and Indonesian nomenclature for Intimate parts in Islam) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. VR _talk 09:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

When you add more information to old posts like this, please could you add a note with a signature. That is useful because:

1. It indicates to users who follow the page that there has been an update.
2. It helps with making archiving decisions.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello:

In July, I undertook an extensive copy edit of British Pakistanis in response to your request at the Guild of Copy Editors. Today, I handled your second request, barely four months later, differently. I have gone through and checked that every edit made since July is okay and made a few minor changes. The copy edit is now up to date.

As I mentioned in my note to you in July, there are many sections of the article that need updating. Until this work is done, further copy edits are largely pointless.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Dear User:Bookku, thanks for letting me know about your recent article creation. I had a look and am impressed with the amount of work that you put into it. Keep up the good work. With regards, Anupam^Talk 16:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Bookku. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Superstitions in Buddhist societies".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Bookku. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sexual politics in south Asia".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

COI seems very likely, their edits are certainly all promoting Jabbar. Your source here[1] is an opinion piece, does all that belong in the article at all? I've reverted almost all of this IP's edits. Doug Weller talk 13:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:,

I already shifted one edit to Draft:Ex-Muslims of Kerala and notified accordingly to the IP. But did not do the same for second to avoid breach of 3 R from my side and IP also did not revert my removal of the content. And previous removals are also not reinstated by previously active ids (or those are same Idk). So may be initial enthusiasm, we can afford to see as good faith. (I am usually bit liberal too all sides)

Kerala atheism and communist traditions are decades old, since past some months some audio apps on social media have become popular in Kerala and with increased discussions regarding atheism (Most of that is in Malayalam language) and some intermittent new coverage in English media is there . But we will need to see is there any credible coverage in Malayalam language media. Once my get through my travel I will ask for Malayalam assistance from India project talk and Malayalam Wikipedia to ease the issues around. (Since discussion can take lot of time I will do that as I get time from travel)

As far ToI ref, if we keep IP's enthusiasm, and technicalities of opinion piece outside, it seems to be a balanced report taking both sides of the debate into account. (ToI opinion columns are not open to any one but weighted before allowing them to write).

Even Picture file does not show only Jabbar but his debate opponent too so Image plus ref at least do not have neutrality issues, merit wise not too bad. In any case I would have acted after discussing issue @ India project talk If you wish to do it early you can go ahead just taking care of 3R because I do not like any one getting bans in haste.

Thanks for contacting

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 14:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article History of the Black Sea, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Black Sea until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

An article you recently created, Aroosa Alam, is not suitable as written to remain published. It lacks basic biographical information. She's a journalist; who published her work? It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Vexations (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey Bookku,

Couple of points about this comment. May I ask why you pinged Andrewa only in it? This comment is of interest to plenty of users (like me). Please see WP:CANVAS.

Regarding systemic bias in general, I do want to point out a few things. We now have two articles on the intersection between slave concubinage and Islam, but not a single article on its intersection with Christianity. Why is there such a focus on Islam? We also have no articles on slavery in Hinduism or Buddhism (let alone female slavery in these religions). We also have no article on slavery and communism (even though many communist states have practiced forced labor, like USSR, China and North Korea). Are these not examples of systemic bias? VR _talk 05:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent:

a) You are well aware I do my best to maintain consistency across articles (unlike others many others) so I should be last person to present any argument of Whataboutism.

b) I sought advice from Andrewa in his capacity of being admin and aware of discussions there and not to canvass.

Just I wanted to confirm that taking me the issue as to systemic bias at this stage would no amount to forum shopping. So my intention to ping is to be careful on Wikipedia rules and not to break them.

c) Any discussion related to systemic bias will take place at relevant board so there is no question of canvassing at this stage.

d) Then again I did not do hidden ping and initially I thought whether I should seek guidance @ his talk page but just avoided to avoid charge of canvassing.

e) Whatever guidance I sought openly on article talk page to avoid charge of canvassing

f) You are well aware many times I end up placing my opposite views first even before my own and most times I invite people from all sides .

g) I would request you to improve in good faith and hope you will avoid stretching argument of canvassing too far since any such intention did not exist. I am not expert in all rules but I attempt to take due care where possible.

Thanks

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 05:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe you had any bad intention. I assume good faith on your part. But I also want you to familiarize yourself with policy as sometimes it is possible to violate it without intending to.VR _talk 06:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Following me around and challenging every edit that I make that removes undue negative information from articles is called WP:WikiHounding, and it may well get you blocked. I've asked to cease interactions with you, and I will stay away from articles you have an interest in. You are under no obligation to do the same, but if your point is merely to continue picking arguments with me, that will not be tolerated. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@WikiDan61:

Requesting to assume WP:Good faith. Following facts will show you, it is purely misunderstanding on your part.

a) I am in habit of making rational and logical but strong arguments at talk page, but most of my Wikipedia engagements are very civil, non personal, without edit wars. I do take breaks on my own from discussions when things get heated up.

b) Our first engagement has been @ Talk:Islam in Finland on account of RfC raised by you and intimated at Wikiproject Islam talk page which is in my watch list and where rarely though I do interact. So this interaction started on your invite only. I have taken sufficient breaks on my own in those related discussions. And kept matter only to the content. There is no edit in the article from my side so there is no question of edit war from my side nor any question of hounding.

c) You seem to have triggered by my latest edit @ Talk:SEPTA as proved in below table I am first to reach the article talk page almost 40 days before of your first edits to that article.

d) You will find my old edits @ Talk:Encyclopedia showing my interest in Encyclopedia philosophy side.

e) You will also find me time and again talking about auditing articles for Women's rights issues @ Project Women in Red.

f) I came out with a list of 7 encyclopedic tools to discuss relevance after discussion @ an article talk page (where we have not interacted). I came to Talk:SEPTA developing my set of encyclopedic philosophical argument.

g) You will find that @ Talk:SEPTA I am complaining about article COVID pandemic because I had interacted on COVID related talk pages so my interaction has multiple much older thinking process tracks which I expressed there without you personally being in mind.

In both the article you were involved in article edit side. I have not edited those articles either. I have joined only talk page content discussions.

Coincidental civil interactions at talk pages for content dispute of two articles is too little to think about hounding and all. When we spend good number of hours on Wikipedia some overlapping in areas of interest is bound to happen. With many other users having different views than me I keep coming across much more, no other user has accused me of hounding at least up til now, you are the first one and mostly out of misunderstanding.

You may wish to differ with my content arguments, but it has nothing to do with any hounding what so ever. Requesting you again to assume WP:Good faith.

It is good to get in touch and clear the things that helps avoiding misunderstandings, so thanks anyways for your communication. and warm regards.

Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

  Hello, Bookku. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Hermeneutics of feminism in Sikhism, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Quick question Bookku: are you able to read and translate Urdu sources? You don't have to answer this question if you don't feel comfortable doing so. VR _talk 06:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I am just a student of South Asian studies. Due to academic training and practice I do understand some languages. Same time at many or rather most times I do take assistance from fellow academicians during my research. For Wikipedia few times translation assistance becomes available but research focus area being different and also if researchers are busy many times assistance is not available for Wikipedia purposes, so for Wikipedia purposes usually I prefer to take linguistic assistance of Wikipedians.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

hi this article Ex-Muslims of Kerala has been tagged for speedy deletion , can you please help here to maintain the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atheist kerala (talk • contribs) 15:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

on my talk page Rlink2 (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  Hello, Bookku. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of erstwhile slave trading townships, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  Your edit to Turkish textbook controversies has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Some of the content you copied from Historical negationism is copyright material copied from the New York Times and elsewhere. It's been present in that article since 2016.— Diannaa (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)