User talk:Bulleh Shah

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Bulleh Shah, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Fred, Its my Pleasure . Its Heart Warming reading your Welcoming Message and upon seeing this Kind Gesture!Bulleh Shah (talk) 01:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with your edits[edit]

I have your reverted your edits to Sultan Bahu because of the severe problems with formatting. We do not provide an honorific at every mention of Muhammad or other notable persons from Islam; please see WP:PBUH for Wikipedia's Manual of Style guidance on the matter. —C.Fred (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and beg to differ not just because of my personal desire but notably in the discussed topic thats: Islam and Sufism (spirituality) the honourable among mankind are deemed to be mentioned with great respect ,humility and love. Such is the case especially when the sufis or the muslims consider writing the Name of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) they use the terms peace be upon him every time and similarly when writing the name of any sufi then all the sufi followers make use of the ® (symbol) next to the sufi name.

This matter i.e the topic of discussion is linked to SUFI's and i would request you to honour the way Sufi names should be written in the truest sense and be respected as per the raised concern.

Note: If you wish you should verify the statement above without fail in regards to formatting complies with islamic followers & sufism followers and it has been this way from "centuries" for discussing stuff related to Sufi or honourable Islamic names. While wikipedia is not Sufism or islam but its discussing an aspect related to it and as such the contributors to the article as well as the general audience is going to be sufism followers , in this particular case it makes good sense to keep things to the original form and normalism . I hope you can make reasonable adjustments to the raised topic concern.

Many Thanks in advance for your attentions, love and your understandings :)

Bulleh Shah (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's established practice is to not follow religious norms in these matters. For instance, we allow the name of God to be spelled out, even though that does not honour the Jewish practice of not writing the name out. That maintains a sense of neutrality, rather than trying to follow the practices of every group. —C.Fred (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Can you please take note & check some user just removed all the new changes that were made to the article: Sultan Bahu ® and reverted to it a very old state/version. It means any valuable information added by a new user was lost without any particular reasons? it seems someone does not like new changes or new changes by any new users?

Is it prohibited by wikipedia to make valuable additions to existing articles .

Bulleh Shah (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quote : " For instance, we allow the name of God to be spelled out, even though that does not honour the Jewish practice of not writing the name out. That maintains a sense of neutrality, rather than trying to follow the practices of every group. "

You'r the admin but for discussion raised would like to add something to that. In Articles where Jewish Topic is concerned i would respect the way of Jewish standards in writing to comply in order to not hurt or be disrespectful to their norms or beliefs etc. Can you write about a President of a country without giving him or her the honourable title of being a President?. Bulleh Shah (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely we can. Consider the article on Elizabeth II. We do not refer to her as "Her Majesty, The QUEEN" or any other format that would be expected by British rules of courtesy. Wikipedia's Manual of Style allows—and expects—us to just use "Elizabeth". —C.Fred (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well , it seems not to be the case on this link as you will acknowledge while reading on the left hand column under the picture section of the following page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States

Hope i make a point on this discussion. Its very intriguing.

No, I don't follow your point. The images of the five living former presidents omit the honorific. And in some of the images, adding the label clarifies that one of the people in the picture was the current president at the time of the picture. —C.Fred (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Office of the President Style Mr. President (informal)[1][2] The Honorable (formal)[3] His Excellency[4][5][6] (in international correspondence)

The above statements are taken from the aforementioned link. Is that necessary too to be stated Fred? .

Yes. We make a note of how to refer to him. But to refer to a specific president in an article, it would be just the president's last name on the second and subsequent mentions. —C.Fred (talk) 03:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you are admitting that you clearly contradict your own very self , it clearly implies as such from your previous statement and with doing so, you accept the fact you would like to have different rules objected to different groups of people and countries?

Can you make a NOTE of how to refer to the MOST SIGNIFICANT people ever till this day?. A president stays for few years and you can accept words of excellency , THE HONORABLE etc to be written for him but cannot accept the Same for another group of people i.e british rules of customs and the Islamic/ SUFI Figures. I don't tend to ask you to write Peace be upon him every time in the same article but to Write ATLEAST ONCE should not be an issue.

If you cannot oblige to your own stated Wikipedi rules , norms, principles and values then don't open a discussion and try to embarrass yourself with the mention of aforementioned Wikipedia rules , norms, principles and values which you state by yourself in first place.

Bulleh Shah (talk) 03:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter that warrants more than just a single line in the infobox. That's why there's a paragraph on it in the Legacy section. —C.Fred (talk) 03:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your biting your own tongue. Wikipedia Neutrality has been raped in your logic (if there was any) ?

Full Stop>

Bulleh Shah (talk) 04:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has become pretty clear, based on your comments here, on my talk page, and on others' talk pages, that you do not yet have a grasp of Wikipedia policies. I have tried to assist you, but apparently I am not the best person to undertake this process. Further, your comment about my logic approaches the realm of a personal attack. As a result, I will no longer continue this thread of discussion with you, here or on my talk page. SK —C.Fred (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i would reiterate there was no personal remarks (as you like to state it as personal attack?) to you or an another individual however where necessary example has been made to make things more explicit for the greater understanding of the respondent. If someone's logic seems to show bias in his understanding and the person admits to the obvious statements that he esteems a certain individual as high but does not uphold the same for another and while the person cannot defend in logical argument his principles or rules ? how can a conversation be continued anyhow. if you notice the discussion was already deemed close with the word fullstop> in previous reply.

Bulleh Shah (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]