User talk:Rehman/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Re: Deletion of National Bank of Bahrain

This article was speedy deleted under Criteria A3 (Article lacking any substantial content) because it consisted of nothing but a single template and had no activity for over 40 minutes at the time of deletion. I have no problems with recreation, but please be aware that some type of meaningful content is expected if you wish to avoid seeing the article deleted again. --Allen3 ^talk 02:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Abandoned" pages

I am unable to delete the list of abandoned articles you sent me due to such an action is not being supported by the current Deletion policy. For articles were another article covers the topic, I would suggest you consider converting the abandoned article into a redirect. For the other articles, If you still wish to see them deleted then you should consider either using the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion process or submitting the article to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion where appropriate. --Allen3 ^talk 10:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the info, i will do that. Have a good day. -- Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 13:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Lead sections

Hi, I noticed you have been placing the first paragraphs of articles under a section heading and/or moving the TOC after the lead section. This is contrary to the manual of style, specifically the lead section guidelines. Here is one example I have corrected: [1]. Good day, Kwanesum (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip Kwanesum, sorry my fault. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 14:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Small edit in the World Trade Center (Bahrain) article

I'm sorry to have made an edit without explaining why I changed it, but I believed it to only be a typo. In fact, the very same reference used in the wiki article (reference 3) contradicts the information exposed in it: as it says in http://www.reuters.com/article/gc07/idUSL1928644820070319, "... [The wind turbines] will supply 11-15 percent of its energy needs, or 1100 to 1300 megawatt-hours per year -- enough to provide light in 300 homes for over a year ...". Therefore, the correct value is 1100 to 1300 MWh or 1.1 to 1.3 GWh. Once again, I would like to say I'm sorry. I haven't got a talk page or a large edit history, but I have been around the wiki for quite some time now. This is still one of the first times I considered making a correction, and I don't know much about how things work backstage. I hope no harm was done. Sakinho (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That's ok Sakinho, I understand. I am also sorry for reverting your edits without reference, as what you have done is correct. Dont worry, you havent done anything wrong at all. If you have any questions regarding anything, you are welcome to ask, i'd like to help you out. Have a good day. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 08:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You haven't screwed up

The great thing about Commons is that an image uploaded there can be used on any Wikimedia project. What's happened is that the image on Wikipedia has actually been deleted (see its log), and the image on Commons is showing up on Wikipedia. Notice the image description: "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below." So don't worry, you've done it exactly right, you just haven't realised it ;) --Closedmouth (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Responded here.

List of twin structures in the world

Hi there - could you take a look at the comment I've made on the talk page for this article, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 09:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi AlexTiefling, i am apologize for not responding to that comment, i really didnt notice it. Your reason for the renaming seems to be very smart, good work! I was just thinking of renaming the article to something like "List of multi-column structures", but that title too is not that "appropriate". What title do you suggest to change the current one to? A title that can mean: List of [structures with two or more identical buildings] in short would be perfect. Feel free to share your thoughts. Have a good day. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 02:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Sri Lanka

Hi, Rehman! I see you're listed as a member of WikiProject Sri Lanka. The wikiproject is currently almost inactive, and we're trying to see if we can get it running again by getting together its members again. If you're still interested in being an active member of the Wikiproject, please add yourself under the list of currently active members on the project page. Hope to see you there. Cheers. -- Chamal ^Talk ± 11:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Chamal, thanks for the invitation, i will add myself soon. Have a good day, thanks again. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 12:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm just trying to see if we can get it up again. Thanks for your interest in this :) Chamal ^Talk ± 12:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem... :-) Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 15:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Revival of Wikiproject Sri Lanka

Hi, Rehman! Since you have volunteered to revive Wikiproject Sri Lanka and get it functioning again, your comments, ideas and suggestions will be welcome at the ongoing discussion at the project talk page. Cheers. -- Chamal ^Talk ± 13:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Chamal... Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 09:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Climate Chart

So what exactly is the problem with using a climate chart? I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but dont you think that particular chart-formatting is a little bit too difficult to understand? Is it the default wiki-chart formatting? If so, then i apologize for reverting your edit. :) Have a good day. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 05:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no standard format, so you had every right to revert. But I would think that that format is the easiest to understand. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually speaking, you're right, it is easy to understand. Sorry for the revert. Lets keep it this way. :) Have a nice day. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 00:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

SpeedTouch 330

Hello, I got one by accident, and have what seems to be it's installation CD. However it has an install for a particular net supplier. If needed give me a call to: (dulac at my-wiki-username dot com). That way I'll receive the message promptly, as I do not come here often. Glad to Help. DuLac. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factor-h (talk • contribs) 20:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your interest in helping Dulac, but it so happened that i already got the driver. But thanks again, so nice of you. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 02:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Scutigera coleoptrata

Your edit has several English language issues. It also doesn't link properly from the "Search" page (works from the sidebar, though). I'm afraid I don't quite have the time to go through it all. I suggest you try to find a native speaker on a project page to have a look-see. Just a couple of pointers: A body with legs makes sense, but legs with a body is odd. Extra is a shortened form of extraordinary. This leads one to wonder what "ordinary" leg length would be. rigid body, which enables it to run the which would be read as referring to "body". Just put a period behind body and start a new sentence with "It is able to" No idea why you removed the pic with the centipede stalking the spider. the way it is arranged now you have a really huge chunk of text without any breaks. This will not encourage reading. Most people like their text arranged in manageable paragraphs. If I can find some time I'll see if I can sort some things out. Plse. don't let this discourage you from editing. I'm only trying to give you some info for improvements. In general editing a bit at a time is the better choice that tossing out the lot and doing everything in one go. I'm not sure at what desk one can find help for article editing. The help desk might be a starting point. Good Luck. Lisa4edit 76.97.245.5 (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Lisa. Thanks for the points. But actually, i am not the person who did the facts/wording. The edit which i made was just structural and formatting. But thanks though, will correct those soon. Have a nice day. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 09:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: modified legs. There are several US university sources e.g. [2]. Bite would only be strictly correct if they used their mandibles to inject the venom, which they don't. (It was pointed out in an article I can't access anymore because it was a "trial view"). Kindly either leave a message on the talk page or revert your edit revision. Thanks. Do you have any clue about the Australian 17 cm specimen?? The editor who put it in has only this one edit in their history and I could not find any web clue to verify the info. They may have mixed it up with another species. Same with "invasive". I think they meant "[[introduced species] with wide distribution". I have yet to find any mention of if adversely affecting local species anywhere. (American cockroaches are still doing fine I can personally vouch for ;-) A couple of sites mentioned "lassoing" with their hind legs as a method for capturing prey. Should we add that? I don't think it is a very descriptive term. Do they wrap the ends of their legs around the prey and then draw it close? Another site also mentioned they jump on to their prey. Would be interesting to find out how far they can jump. I'll edit out "an average of 15 legs" since from all the pages I've seen 15 is the upper limit during the last 3 adult molts. Lisa4edit (talk) 09:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Page naming error

I read the page on "House centipede". What the heck is "Moved to scientific name for better classification" supposed to mean? Wikipedia isn't a binomial science encyclopedia. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions if you're confused. In page names, you give the most common page name first, then with lesser known terms for such a thing made as redirects (such as Red Panda instead of Ailurus fulgens). The only pages on Wikipedia that are named for their binomial names are their is no commonly known name for the organism, such as Solanum sibundoyense. Scutigera coleoptrata really needs to be changed back to House centipede. I'd do it myself, but though I know how to copy and paste the information to that page, I haven't a clue how you managed to move the entire history of the page, practically retconning it to seem like Scutigera coleoptrata has been the page name since the page was first created in 2004. Kevin (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Whats your problem, dont you have human sense to talk properly? If you want it moved, move it yourself; i just thought it was appropriate thats all. Stop promoting violence like these here on Wikipedia. This is an educational site, not a debate club. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 12:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oriental cockroach

A little over a month ago, you made some changes to Oriental cockroach and removed the cleanup notice, but it looks to me like the main effect of your changes was to completely break the citation apparatus. I can't work out what you meant to do. Could you please take a look? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 05:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Joe,
Thanks for the notice. That edit (and the edit i made just a few minutes ago) are just part of general formatting (such as wiki-templates, links, and wiki-sortable-tables), i havent actually changed or removed any facts. Do feel free to compare changes if you may; because from what i see, the current version looks better than the previous versions. But do feel free to make changes (i.e. facts, templates, etc) if you think the edits were wrong. Have a nice day. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 07:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Last night the citation syntax was broken, but it must not have been your fault. Someone must have messed with the citation templates. - Jmabel | Talk 15:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments needed

You are receiving this message because you are listed as an active participant in WikiProject Meteorology, WikiProject Severe weather, and/or WikiProject Non-tropical storms. I have made a proposal to start an official assessment page for these three projects, under the WP:METEO banner. Since this would need significant participation to work properly, I'd like input from as many interested parties as possible (even those who may not watch the project pages), so please visit the discussion here and leave your thoughts/opinions. Thanks! -RunningOnBrains 02:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Responded on the relevant talk page. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 07:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

List of rivers in Sri Lanka

Hi Rehman, I noticed you have moved "List of rivers of Sri Lanka" to List of rivers in Sri Lanka. Its name is alright whether it is of or in. See this. I created the redirect too to avoid the confusion. I prefer of to comply with Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Drafts/Outline of Sri Lanka. Cheers!--Chanakal (talk) 05:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Chanakal,
Thank you for your input. I have noticed that a majority of listed articles are named after of; unfortunately this is wrong. Its incorrect because Sri Lanka is not a person to call articles as "...of Sri lanka"; instead it may be called "...in Sri Lanka", since the country is a "location". I hope you understand. Have a nice day :). Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 05:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, Sometimes countries are personified. Such as "Italia", "Anglia". If you create the redirects I don't mind whether it is in or of. Cheers again! -- Chanakal (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :). Since it is not that appropriate to personify Sri Lanka in most place on Wikipedia, i will just change some which suits the name. Have a nice day. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 06:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Semi-protection

I must decline your request for semi-protection of Bahrain and semi-protection and move-protection of Manama as Wikipedia's protection policy does not allow preemptive protection of articles with no indication of problems and neither article appears to have a recent history of vandalism to justify such protection. In the future please make your requests for page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. My schedule can be erratic and the central request location allows any available admin to handle your request instead of only a single admin. --Allen3 ^talk 11:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ow. Sorry. Anyways, thank you for your time. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 14:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Elevator count

Hi, I noticed you recently added the hidden comment "The term "Elevator Count" refers to the number of elevators in a building. Please confirm this number, as having 150 elevators in a single building is just not possible" to the Nakheel Tower article. I was always a little confused about this too, but many other tall building articles have high elevator counts. See Sears Tower and Taipei 101 for example. Maybe the count is not the shafts but the elevator cars themselves? --timsdad ^(talk) 06:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well Timsdad, i think its quite obvious that mentioning number of elevator-cars instead of number of elevators will not be of any use, or makes any difference, since each shaft carries only one car. But in some cases, one may find double-deck cars; but 150 as elevator count just cannot be possible even in this fact, since dividing 150 by two or three (for double/triple deckers) would result in a not-possible number of 75 or 50). But my main point here is, the template itself says elevator count, so am i (or we) missing something or is it a error pandemic spreading among editors? Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 11:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC) --- Discussion continued here. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 13:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Expand

Hi. Concerning this edits of yours I would like to inform you that {{Expand}} reads "{{Expand}} should not be used on articles concurrently with stub templates - a stub template is an explicit request for expansion. It should only be used on articles that are beyond stub length, in place of a stub template.". Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the info, nice timing, or else i'll be doing this to all articles i come across. :). Have a nice day. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 07:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Cheers Rehman, I will contribute as much as i can and if i have any queries I'll ask for help. Thanks again! Pilotofthefuture1 (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

:) You're welcome. Have a wonderful and brainy future here on Wikipedia! Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 10:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Waterfalls

Please don't remove references from articles as you did in List of waterfalls in Sri Lanka. Removing references and claiming you improved them as you here is not very constructive. It is degradation of articles. Also please don't resort to your personnel preference of table formatting.Best--Chanaka L (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Chanakal,
The link you provided above is a subpage of my userpage. Firstly, i have to tell you that no one should depend on facts posted on userpages; those are not binding (WP:UCS). But yet, i do still believe that i have significantly improved the article; i have merged three articles (all with the same objective), and turned the article from this to this. But i do admit that i have ommitted the references, which i believe is done by error, since i have retyped the entire article-wikicode on an external application. Regardng the table formatting, i would perfectly agree to apply your format if you could prove that this is the MOS approved format; the reason i used this format is that it easily distinguishes the difference between the headers and table, and i did not changed it because i like it, as you claimed. No offence, its just that i dont think your comment is strong enough to prove that my edits are degradation of articles, even after changing so much. I have now performed the following edits for the respective reasons.
 • Added {{clear}} and NOTOC (new edits): widescreen formatting and complimenting WP:MOS.
 • Removed (Height in feet): It will not be clear to new readers as it would show as the brackets describes Height in meters; after all the values are already given in brackets, (WP:UCS).
 • Changed table formatting: For the above reason.
I hope you understand. But do feel free to comment if you still think i am wrong, after all, Wikipedia is a collaborated project. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 08:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid, Wikipedians usually do take into account any edits performed in any namespace by fellow editors. It is funny how do you define WP:UCS, for example what's the point of having WP:USERPAGE guidelines then? The way you edit that particular subpage gave me the impression you just use it as a trophy cabinet rather than really take effort to improve articles. What is really considered improving is something improving from this to this. The two diffs provided by you make more apparent what little you have done. I see you're only adding an inaccurate fact and changing table formatting to a fancier one and of course removing established references. Next thing you did is adding the name to your "improved article list". You haven't added any extra information or references. I don't mind any editor claiming that they improved an article if they really emphasized on content and sources. Instead what you done here shows that you have little knowledge of the subject. For example, this not all the waterfalls with over 10m in height. This list included all the waterfalls taller than 60m and some of the other known waterfalls up to 10m. I created the central province list because it is here the most number of falls situated in Sri Lanka, if you have little knowledge of geography of central province you may know why. As I didn't include much information to that article I am not going to recreate the article out of redirect you made unless I have more information. I can ask the same question on the table formatting you have added is the MoS approved style. I changed it other way because it less fanciful and it is the format I've seen in many articles including featured list like this, List of number-one singles from the 2000s (UK). I can't understand your passion of adding template clear to every article you edit in the end of the lead section. It is useful to clear the text when they are cluttered with pictures, etc. So use it sparsely. If you really add some valuable information to the article backed by reliable sources I have nothing say. Cheers!--Chanaka L (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Chanaka,
Firslty, i have to let you know that my above comments was not written of anger; i just prefer to be formal. And i also do apologize if it sounded like it was (because yours did). Moving to the topic, you are right that i have not much knowledge in the geography of Sri Lanka. After all, i was not from the country, i just like it. If you havent noticed, i mostly do wikiformatting, vandal control and rewording in my edits; so you cant possibly find me editing major fact-related areas, except in infrastructure, cosmology, meteorology and sustainable energy. Regarding the tables, i have to thank you for bringing that up again. You had made me go through numerous articles and i believe the following code can be used as default:
{|class="sortable wikitable"
|-
Since there is no forced formatting in the above code, this could be the default format; (and is similar to what you said). For this reason, i will revert the table (and all the other tables i edited) to this format. And regarding the {{clear}} formatting, i use multiple displays including widescreens, so i can assure you that this is a supportive edit; (after all, it does not visually change anything for viewers who doesnt get affected by different resolutions. So i thank you again for letting me know my mistakes, and apologies if my comments sounded strong. Best regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 03:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear me, I can assure that last thing in my mind regarding this discussion is getting angry. All I wanted was point you the value of references in the articles. It is nice to hear that you're doing wikiformatting. Well, that is something similar to what I also doing in the occasions when I don't write articles. I do gnome works such as adding cats to uncatted pages, fixing layout, punctuations, etc. Have a look here. So keep the good work up. I think article is looks fine now. I appreciate your contributions towards the Sri Lanka-related articles. All the best then!--Chanaka L (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

An article on Community Portal of Sri Lanka Muslims

Hi Although SLMUSLIMS.COM is a website, it is hihgly regarded as one of the imporant portals for Sri Lankan Muslims. I've created an article for this which is available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ramomu/slumslims I tried to publish this few times, but unfortunately it was deleted. Finally, one admin responded giving this Sri Lanka related Wiki editors and I am here to get some assistance. Could you please let me know how can this made available on Wiki. Very similar websites exist within Wiki such as islamonline.net. Thanks in advance. Ramomu (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Responded here. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 05:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Rehman, thanks for your response. However, as you pointed out the features like Matrimonial Services, Joblisting and Qa'ranExplorer all are free services and in line with the cause - which is serving the muslim community of Sri Lanka. I do understand the article may have portrayed differently to that of wiki standards and that is one of the reasons I asked you and help us improving this article. I am quite surprised you did not know about this site, yet it is just only two years old and gaining wide popularity amongst most of Muslims who look for Islamic content online in Sri Lanka. If for example, you ask some of the leading scholars like ACJU President Rizwe Mufti or Yousuf Mufti or Shiekh Agar, they'll definitely vouch for this site and its cause. Just for your information, the operators of this website including myself are in the process of establishing a Foundation/Trust in this name and futher extend its services by offering scholarships to the poor and needy students in Sri Lanka. I still hope you could help us in re-writing the article and in line with its sole cuase of serving the community. Thank you. Ramomu (talk) 06:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ramomu,
I understand that you are working on this for a worthy cause, but the article needs to be build, and contained with, sufficient and appropriate content to be an encyclopedic article. Try studying pages like WP:YFA and WP:MOS to get familiar with the theme. You may also try following other website articles (Amazon.com, Space.com, etc) and study the format to utilize. I wish you luck with your article; i will try to help you wherever i fit in. Best regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 03:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your advices Rehman. Shall try to write in line with those and get your advices later as and when it is needed. Kind Regards. Ramomu (talk) 07:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Rehman Abubakr

Hello Rehman Abubakr, Blackknight12 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you for that Rehman! It did brighten up my day a bit. :)--Blackknight12 (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Have a nice day and happy editing! :) Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 11:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you much Rehman, for the barnstar. I appreciate it a lot. By the way you should post barnstars in receiver's talk page. Yeah we learn those things as we go by, aren't we? Happy to contribute in Sri Lanka-related articles. Wish you very best!--Chanaka L (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome Chanaka. Its for your dedicated work on nature-related topics of Sri Lanka. I've seen that most of your work is based in areas such as animal species, and geography-related such as parks and forests; which is an important area in a country like Sri Lanka. You have also tried well in improving articles into GA or etc status. Good work and happy editing :). Yea, i guess we learn things as we go by... Best regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 05:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, nature and geography articles are joyful to write and improve. Sri Lanka is one of the 8 super Biodiversity hotspots in the world. So many things to be written. Thanks again--Chanaka L (talk) 06:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Port of Colombo updates

Dear Rehman,
Thanks for the instructions. I was trying to justify my figures by citing websites not to promote them. However I agree with your comment. So please educate me, since I want to update more on Colombo harbour by adding details of three seperate container terminals, how should I proove my informations are true & correct?
Regards. Y.indika (talk) 13:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello. You can source them (prove them accurate) by clicking the last button on the editing toolbox. You can find basic editing tools here. Feel free to contact me if you need any assistance. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 14:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello sir,
I am planning to upload photos of colombo port taken by me personaly. Please help me to do it successfully. Cheers. Y.indika (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello. You can first start by creating a Unified Account, so that you can access Wikimedia Commons to upload files. You can do this by clicking My Preferences and clicking on Manage your global account (it is also advantageous to review your settings, if you havent done so). You can then use your current name and password to sign in to Wikimedia Commons. After signing into Commons, click on Upload File in the Participate box on the left. Feel free to let me know if you need further assistance. Regards. Rehman (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Also please note that, if you plan on Unifying your account, it is best to chose the username you are comfortable with. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 15:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Rename

Hello. What has happened is an error, and it usually happens when the requestor edits around the time of the rename. The old account seems to be re-registered instantly. If you'd like the old username to be erased, I'd be happy to rename the account to a random string of characters. Is that what you want? Regards, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you very much for your reply. The thing is, if its not a corrupted account (because the new account doesnt have a registered email address), i wouldnt have a problem keeping it as it is. But if it is not a problem to you or the server, i would prefer it being completely destroyed, (no redirects, notices, history, etc), so that someone can later register the name. But, if the process involves in renaming it to another name (say User:1234) and emptying the current namespace, i would prefer keeping it as a souvenir. :) What makes this even more interesting is, my Commons renaming process (Rehman Abubakr to Rehman) ended up like this too, but there, i have never performed any edits in the old account. Now to make things even worse, .az, .de and .nl wikis show a new Rehman which never existed before userpation, thus not allowing me to register there. :( My accounts are all crapped up? Again, thanks for replying, because i do understand the workload over there. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 12:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I have renamed the old account to User:G4BR0HMV68 (a randomly generated string of characters). That other Rehmans exist on other wikis is not a problem. Because they have not made any edits, you should be fine to usurp the name on the other wikis and merge them with your SUL. Regards, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I dont seem to be able to sign into the old account. :) Do you think you could help me usurp the remaining accounts? Because, i seriously need help in that, i have no idea how to communicate (language) with the editors there... Also, do i have the right to setup a notice on User:Rehman Abubakr like how i did before (editing from the new account)? Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 11:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

No, please don't edit User:Rehman Abubakr. When it comes to usurpation on other wikis, there are usually bureaucrats who can understand English to some degree. I'm not sure I can help – I'm only fluent in English myself. Regards, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand. Then instead of editing it from here, can i register that account, (since the WP:CHUU permits)? I would not perform any edits from that account, to avoid any sock puppetry. :) Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 12:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and help. Best regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 12:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Ocean currents and gyres template

Your final template pulling together ocean currents and gyres is the appropriate one. Well done! --Geronimo20 (talk) 13:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 13:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• However it was quite wrong to tag Template:Oceanic gyres for deletion while numerous pages were still using it. You should have changed it to a redirect. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. Yes i do understand what you mean. I have tagged it for deletion because the page links to only a small amount of articles. Since the deletion tag was not speedy, i intended to change the remaining links today, just like how i did to all the articles listed in the Oceanic gyres and currents template. My main, and only, reason for tagging was to avoid the Gyres template being an orphan, and consequently being forgotten, like many other links in the wiki. I hope you understand. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 02:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• [Different indent level because I am not Geromino20!] Whaddya mean "the deletion tag was not speedy" - what, pray, does "tagged for SD" mean? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, i have tagged it for speedy, but the SD tag was removed in the following edit. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 02:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• The SD tag was not removed - it was merely <noinclude>'d - which is quite different. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 03:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, you have a point there. But, based on the subject of this discussion, it doesnt really matter whether its an AfD or SD request, right? :) I mean, the subject was, after all, only to know why i tagged it for deletion, which was already explained... Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 03:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hard space

Hi, Rehman. Could you please explain, why you removed all hard space formatting? Even if it does not in the current line break, it is preferred to use it between figures and symbols or abbreviations etc. Also, I don't think that using {{tl:clear}} template for the right-side infoboxes is necessary. It could be different with left-side objects. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 09:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Beagel. Reason i removed all the hard spaces is that it doesnt do much when used in a paragraph or plain text. I mean, it would only have a use if it were added into a blank cell of a table. I have absolutely no objection in adding them back if there were a reason. Because, as far as i know, there are thousands to millions of articles that do not use it between abbreviations, symbols, ect. And if it were really a rule to place them, it should've been listed in WP:AWB, WP:DAB or similar, right? The {{clear}} only helps users using widescreen displays; to prevent headers moving onto images, text, infoboxes, or ect. Please do feel free to let me know if any of my edits/claims are false. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 10:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The policy about non-breaking spaces is described by WP:NBSP. I myself learned about this during WP:GAN and WP:FAC processes. Beagel (talk) 10:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. My error. Will replace all necessary instances with the formatting (non-html wiki-type {{nowrap}}) as i come across. Thanks. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 12:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to User talk:SoWhy, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. According to Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Proper minor edits consist only of things like typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Thank you.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 08:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the info Garett. My preferences were set to always display as minor, since an editor would mostly perform minors. I didnt know about this till now. Will watch out next time. Thanks again. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 09:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad to have been of help. Actually, I know I definitely make more major edits than minor ones, so I don't know how often it would be the case that an editor would make mostly minor edits – unless they just don't like to do anything but fix typos/grammar/formatting all over the place.
Additionally, I've never had that box set to be checked by default; every time I make an edit, I see that check box and just quickly consider what kind of changes I've made and whether they should be called minor or not (if I haven't already decided in my mind which one it is).
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 09:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand. What i meant was we do more typos and similar fixes. :) Thanks anyways. Regards, Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 09:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

WQA notice

Hello, Rehman. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Rehman regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Johnfos (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Responded accordingly (here and here). Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 04:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Creating Lists of power stations in xx articles

Hello, I noticed you were merging many power related lists into a single list of power stations in XX articles. It seems like a good idea, but I have a question about the formatting for them. In these new article formats, where should proposed facilities go? In the previous article formats like List of wind farms in Washington#Proposed, there was a proposed section in the article. Should proposed facilities go in the tables under the "Status" column List of power stations in Oregon#Wind_farms with the status of "Proposed" or should there be a proposed section in the article itself? Thanks. TimeClock871 (talk) 09:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. It would be much more easier to access information if it were all merged to one sortable table. For example:

Station	Capacity (MW)	Location	Status
Power Station 1	1000	Africa	Under construction
Power Station 2	1500	Asia	Operational
Power Station 3	2000	Antarctica	Proposed
Power Station 4	2500	Europe	Operational
Power Station 5	3000	North America	Operational
Power Station 6	3500	South America	Proposed

Merging it like the above, would enable the reader to find: 1) The largest power station of any status. 2) The status (or capacity, location, etc) of a given station without having to surf through multiple tables. 3+) And pretty much other similar information that may be a bit harder to find if it were in multiple tables. Although, for visual advantages, it may be better in most cases to have a separate table for each station by technology (ie: Wind farms, Hydroelectric stations, etc). Hope this helps. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 10:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Got it, I understand, thanks. Looking at it now, it really does seem like a better way to organize it, especially that new template (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PowerStations). Great idea and nice work! TimeClock871 (talk) 10:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for the nice comments . Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 13:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Your request for administratorship

I think I shall vote for you. Please take the time to answer the questions though. I am very interested in how you respond of the questions. Prop3v56 (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Prop3v56. I will do that. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 01:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I left one question for you on your candidate page. Please answer when you can. Politoman (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I have answered. Thank you for participating. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 09:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rehman, I have asked a further question on your RFA. Would you have a moment to answer this? Thanks! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Tbsdy. I have answered that question. Thank you for participating. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 15:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks... can you just confirm that is the final answer? Posting a template to a talk page doesn't seem like an enforcement action to me... please note that I'm not asking a trick question here. Your answer may be that you wouldn't take any action to enforce the warning. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that is my final answer. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 15:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Your RfA has been closed

I regret to inform you that your request for adminship closed after failing to obtain the necessary consensus to promote you to adminship. As several participants commented, you should review the concerns raised there and address them before making another attempt. It appears that, if those concerns (mostly regarding lack of experience in the project space) are addressed, you would likely succeed at another bid in several months. I encourage you to take the comments made as positive and constructive critique, and a roadmap for improvement. If you have any questions, please let me know. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

All comments taken into hand. Thank you for participating. Best regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 15:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Autoreviewer

Hi Rehman, one thing I noticed in your RFA was that you have contributed 78 new articles and have thereby displayed an understanding of policies such as wp:notability. So I've flagged your account as an wp:Autoreviewer. My successful RFA was four months after my unsuccessful attempt, so I know what it is to have an RFA not succeed. I hope to see you at RFA again in a few months, but for now my advice would be to get back to the areas of editing that you most enjoy. Cheers and happy editing. ϢereSpielChequers 15:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. And thank you very much for the Autoreviewer flagging. Hope to see you around. Best regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 15:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Kudos

		The Resilient Barnstar
		I'm sorry your RfA failed, but well done for taking the criticism offered on the chin. I genuinely hope to see you back at RfA in a few months when you think those issues have been resolved. I have a failed RfA of my own, so I cna tell you it's not necessarily a bad thing! All the best, HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 15:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Well appreciated. . Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 15:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Buildings

Hey I don't feel the proposal and construction should be merged in the twin building article. because they are not buildings yet. can u also add cuchillan i asked in teh talk. im sure there are other twins that hae not been listed yet. i dont feel comfortable yet editing will try to learn more about wikipedia. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.20.46 (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your input. I understand that the list is not complete; its the case with most lists on Wikipedia. This is only because Wikipedia is global, and such lists takes time to develop. You are most welcome is helping out wherever you can. If you are interested in being part of Wikipedia, its is always an advantage to register an account. Moving to the topic, the merging helps readers by allowing to easily compare entries by clicking the sort button next the headers; although, it doesnt necessarily have to be that way. Feel free to ask if you need any further assistance, i'd be happy to help. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 00:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Article quality

Thank you for creating many lists of power stations, but I am concerned about the quality of many of these articles. Each article should have a lead section which introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria, references which verify what is being said, adequate images, and sortable tables. Perhaps aim to fulfill at least some of the criteria in Wikipedia:Featured list criteria and ideally bring some of the lists up to FL quality if possible. This would be a big improvement which would benefit readers. Johnfos (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Although I dont see which article you are pointing at, I will take all guidelines into consideration. Thank you for your input. Best regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 03:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Even if you are unable or unwilling to take any of your lists to FL, please try and keep up the quality as much as you can. Lists such as these, which are very short and have no citations, really look quite scrappy:

• List of power stations in Egypt
• List of power stations in Ghana
• List of power stations in Liberia
• List of power stations in Mali
• List of power stations in Mozambique
• List of power stations in Rwanda
• List of power stations in Swaziland
• List of power stations in Zimbabwe

-- Regards, Johnfos (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, i should tell you that creating articles are not creating trophies. These articles were created to better organize global lists and help improve global coverage on the topic in the future; i do not own them. If you think it looks quite scrappy, them improve them yourself. Thats what wikipedia is all about; one creates a stub, the other brings it up. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 01:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response as it has prompted me to have another look at this... The lists which have just one item shown are not really lists at all, are they? For what it's worth, I don't think I've ever seen a list on WP with only one entry, until now. If there are more entries to come then the article should say that "this list is incomplete", or something similar. Otherwise the articles should probably be redirected. Johnfos (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

James Bay Project

Hi, I've noticed you changed the names of the 8 hydroelectric generating stations of the James Bay Project. Problem is your new names are incorrect (see this page for the official English names of the generating stations). As per WP:PLACES s. 1 "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it". Thanks. Bouchecl (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. My apologies for that. I am performing a large-scale cleanup on all power station lists; i must have not studied that well. Thank you for informing. Sorry again. Feel free to move it back. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 14:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The moves will have to be made by an administrator, because it involves the deletion of the redirect pages. I'll post a request on WP:RM. Bouchecl (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ow. You could also request a WP:CSD#G6 speedy deletion of the redirect. It would be much faster. Please do let me know if you need help (as i am responsible). Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 14:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I just moved seven back as the Bourassa page had already been done. Of the seven only one required that the redirect be deleted. something lame from CBW 19:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

List of hydroelectric power stations

Hey Rehman, after your FLC, I added a column for references, but it was removed by an IP. Rest assured it would need to need to be sourced to be featured quality. Also, I don't think it's all that far off from the criteria. If everything was sourced and the lead was expanded, it would pretty much be there in my opinion. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I just went through the history, looks like i did revert only one of the two edits by the IP. Didnt notice that there were two. I will added it back soon. Thank you for spotting. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 23:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Sorry for the delay, i sort of forgot about it . Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 12:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Improper AfDs and disruptive behaviour

I notice that another editor has commented on an "improper AfD" of yours here. This is one a of a series of articles which you have recently tagged for deletion, see [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Unfortunately, you appear largely unable to use Talk pages to initiate discussion and move things forward in the normal way, and move too quickly and often unnecessarily to AfD. I have asked you before to stop this disruptive behaviour and use the AfD process as a last resort, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wind farms in Australia. Johnfos (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

For your information, AfD is a place to discuss deletions. I didnt delete any pages myself, did i? Its purely community decision whether it should be deleted or not. Openly speaking, my edits only turn disruptive when i touch your articles, doesnt it? Do calm down, if you dont like the move, simply oppose or comment, i wouldnt mind it at all; thats the reason i moved the decision to public place. The related country wont wage war if we move it to either article. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 01:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I can assure you that I don't own the articles in question, and have limited interest in lists. Many of the articles you want to delete have been around for years, some of them since before my time. I think readers would expect WP to have "List of wind farms in xxx" articles, as wind farms are quite notable.

Please hear what is being said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wind farms in Canada. User:Warrah has said: "This is an improper AfD. There is no clear violation of editorial policy, which invalidates the call for deletion". User:Beagel has said: "we should try to find the overall solution and consensus on the relevant project (in this case WP:Energy, I suggest) talk page". If you won't follow my suggestions please follow theirs. These articles should never have gone to AfD. Johnfos (talk) 05:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Launching an AfD is not waging war. Why do you take everything so serious? If the discussion leads to a "Keep", we keep, or vice versa. I will not harm anyone, anything, any country, anything... It doesnt really make that much of a big impact by launching an AfD. Relax man. Step one step back from your screen and look whats happening. I dont have anything against you or the articles. I, myself alone, feel like it should be moved to the parent list, just for the sake of neatness and accessibility. Hence the AfD helps to see other opinions instead of only mine... I hope you understand. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 05:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

And I have nothing against you either Rehman. I thought that as someone who had expressed an interest in Adminship in the past, that you may have at least tried to clarify WP:Deletion policy through discussion with experienced editors such as Beagel and Warrah. Obviously that is not the case. Johnfos (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ilisu Dam

Did you tag this for deletion simply because you want to move the article to this title but can't? I'm not entirely sure, so I'll not delete it at the moment; it will help if you clarify. If you want it to be deleted so that the page can be moved, you can tag it with {{db-move}}, which explains the situation more clearly. Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 03:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Ilisu Dam

Hello Rehman. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Ilisu Dam, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The suggested move would probably be inconsistent with established style. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Eastmain. I understand. I just though it would be a better move since the target namespace is the English title (since this is the .en wiki). No objections though, i am ok with the current style. :) Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 05:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Bahrain rugby

We have separate articles for rugby sevens and fifteen-a-side rugby union teams. They are not one and the same. Please do not delete or move Bahrain national rugby union team (sevens) again, it is not helpful, is going to use up a lot of time and mucks up the links from other sevens articles.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault. I didnt realize that. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 13:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I think the form "Bahrain national rugby sevens team" would be better than "B. nat. rugby union team (sevens)" myself, but that's the standard form used elsewhere.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 13:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)