User talk:Palltrast

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Palltrast, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Jack Oliver (scientist). I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 13:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Messages

Hello Palltrast, well I've toned down the opinion and given some direct sources for quotes and statistics 81.62.188.169 (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC). Still too opinionated?

Re: Awan (Pakistan)

Hi Palltrast. Thank you for getting in touch with me. I appreciate what you have to say regarding me being engaged in what seems to be an edit war with Alamsherkhan. However, before you got in touch with me, I did leave a message on his page outlining basic Wiki rules, guidelines and etiquette. I don't expect you to be au fait with the history of the Awan tribe, but in a nutshell, this is the issue: the Awans are a Punjabi tribe, predominantly residing in Pakistan (I myself belong to the tribe, though I'm a born and bred Londoner). The majority of the tribe claims to be descended from Arab ancestors, and though this claim is disputed by some, this tradition forms a core belief of the members of this tribe, and is inextricably tied to their identity. As such, the article, from the outset, makes reference to this putative claim. Furthermore, the article also contains fully referenced citations that elaborate upon this issue to varying degrees, including the viewpoints of those who both agree and disagree with the assertions made by the bulk of the Awan tribe, vis-a-vis its origins - in fact, no serious study of the Awans omits reference to this issue (regardless of whether or not the author in question agrees with these traditional claims), and it follows that it will invariably form a relevant and central part of the Wiki article relating to the Awans; as such, not only have I made reference to this (wherever appropriate), I have also ensured that wherever possible, each and every one of the points made regarding this issue, is substantiated by fully referenced source material, ranging from commentators belonging to both the East and West, and those who undertook a study of the tribe during the era of the British Raj, all the way up to contemporary historians and anthropologists. Furthermore, at no point have I definitively stated that the Awans are of Arab origin, and in the interests of balance and neutrality, I have also presented the opinions of those who reject the Awans' claim to Arab descent (again, sourced from fully referenced material). Despite this, because Alamsherkhan does not believe that the Awans are of Arab origin (an opinion he is entitled to), he is arbitrarily and without any justification at all, deleting all such references (including widely acknowledged works such as those compiled by British colonial administrators, and more recent and widely respected studies such as those undertaken by Alison Shaw, a Senior Research Fellow at Oxford University), so that the article is in keeping with his personal point of view. Furthermore, he is adding his own unsubstantiated viewpoints to the article, and because it appears that English isn't his first language, not only does the article not flow properly due to him removing material that is actually referenced (unlike his additions), it is also incoherent in parts due to grammatical errors. As such, I contacted him, and was perfectly civil and courteous in requesting that he desist from indulging in non-constructive vandalism, and that if he did want to add material to the article that reflects his point of view and countered the opinions of authors that have already been cited, then he was most welcome to do so, as long as he could substantiate his additions with appropriate references. However, he has completely ignored this, and he continues to make a mess of the article, and remove valid, important and fully referenced material that I have spent a great deal of time adding to the article (in fact, I have made every effort to ensure that almost all of the additions made to the article are fully referenced, and accurate). Therefore Alamsherkhan's actions are not only unfair, they are also unacceptable. Please feel free to look through the message I left on his user page, as well as the edit history of the article in question. Alamsherkhan has completely ignored my attempts to reason with him, so I would appreciate any assistance you could provide in restoring the article to the last edit I made.

Regards

Rawalpindi Express (talk) 08:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

regarding edits

It appears that one editor has been editing with the sole purpose of adding links to that website. The editor has been previously warned by other editors and has had the edits reverted previously by other editors. Chicken Wing (talk) 04:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

New page stalking

Will you please allow sometime for new articles to develop instead of incessantly adding tags and deletions?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm tempted to open a sockpuppetry investigation into you. For somebody who has been here barely three weeks you know a frightening amount of wiki "policy" and law. I find it highly doubtful that a newbie would even know about the disamb deletion tag, I had forgotten about it and I'm one of our most active contributors. I suspect you have multiple accounts.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

If you can genuinely say that you are a newbie who happens to know all of the "rules" and templates then you are extremely rare. For somebody who has been here barely a month you seem to have got into the trap of thinking of wikipedia as a system of rules as opposed to an encyclopedia, which many veterans here have also done. But all I can say is that it is content which more important than anything and that rules rarely have much effect across the site. Double standards exist everywhere and rules are broken and even invented on a daily basis. As for "personal attacks" I see none of them. But note I am especially especially friendly to content contributors and am strongly against those who try to impede development or fail to see the purpose behind developments. Your attempt to speedy my dab page yesterday even if you believed you were doing what was right or by the book was a complete waste of time and contrary to what I had in mind. The purpose was to create articles like The Bull Hotel, Cambridge, again which you failed to actually investigate and attacked the initial creation immediately. I break the rules every day on wikipedia in my editing and I rarely get into any real difficulty or have my articles deleted. Most active editors here have learned to let editors such as myself alone and get on with building the site. Perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Much more effective towards building what is important. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Palltrast

Last week, I tired to delete the page "Ron Tarrant".

I am Ron Tarrant and wrote this as an autobiography. I would like the information removed and the page to be deleted. I understand Wikapedia's guidleines are to not have autobigraphy's. How would i go about doing this?

thank you.

pureproduction@live.ca (Email)

Ron Tarrant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arts&entertainment (talk • contribs) 18:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)