User talk:Idell/Archive 2

List of Largest Mosques
Hello there,

I just noticed that you have reverted an edit of mine on List of largest mosques. You have mentioned that the deletion of that part of the article was previously discussed. As I am new to Wikipedia, I couldn't find that discussion to take a look at it. Could you help me find it? Essence of Transcendence (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello there again, I humbly asked you to kindly guide me as to where can I find the discussion you referred to regarding the deletion of a part of the article on the List of largest mosques, but instead you have made the same reversion on my edit and have describe my edit as disruptive. Could you kindly explain why is my addition to the article a disruptive edit? I have briefly discussed this particular edit of mine on the talk page of the List of largest mosques as well. Essence of Transcendence (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi there, the discussion is currently in the archives of WP:ANI, you’ll find it here . Here is the part, relevant for us, where my version, and thus my reversion, was deemed correct:
 * Idell (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the link. As I have mentioned on the talk page of the List of largest mosques, the word "largest" obviously refers to the biggest in terms of physical size. So I believe not only the text, but also the list should be revised and resorted based on this criterion. As such, I gather mentioning the world largest mosque in terms of size in the opening line of the article is perfectly relevant and necessary. Essence of Transcendence (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , what the word ‘largest’ means has been explained in the lede. Nothing you’re saying warrants a complete reorganisation of the page. If you want an article to list the largest mosques of the world by occupied area, I recommend creating a separate article instead. Idell  (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * That is exactly the point! The definition of the "largest" in the article is highly problematic and that's why I have made this revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Essence of Transcendence (talk • contribs) 18:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

 has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sock puppet of, and it has been blocked indefinitely. Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sock puppet for evidence. (Account information: [ block log] )

About Fatima Jinnah Park
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Fatima Jinnah Park a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Fatima Jinnah Park/sandbox. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Requests for history merge. Thank you.  Dtt1 Talk  16:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Incorrigible
Hi. I agree with the IP edit to Psychopathy that you reverted here. The change they made to "...likely to be highly incorrigible using currently available treatment methods..." is consistent with the definition of incorrigible (from Merriam-Webster in this case) as "incapable of being corrected or amended", whereas the change to "...incorrigible to the currently available treatment methods..." reads like there is some transitivity acting on the treatment methods. I can see that they mean essentially the same thing, but I had to think twice when reading the new version while the first version was immediately clear. Is there a preferred usage in the field, or another reason that you prefer the reverted version? Best, ЄlєvєN єvєN | | иэvэ иэvэlэ  18:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * , hello. As you said, both uses are quite correct but I think ‘… incorrigible to the currently available treatment methods …’ sounds better. It sounds more natural to use a preposition before a noun or a noun phrase, just as in ‘ineffective against Disease A’.  Idell  (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Rollback and Reviewer granted
Hello Idell. Your account has been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3A granted] the "rollbacker" and "pending changes reviewer" user rights. These user rights allow you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes and quickly revert the edits of other users.


 * Rollback user right
 * Please keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin).


 * Pending changes reviewer user right
 * The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection enabled is located at Special:StablePages. You may find the following pages useful to review:
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing.
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes.
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of reviewer or rollback. If you no longer want either of these user rights, contact me and I'll remove it, alternatively you can leave a request on the administrators' noticeboard. Happy editing! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Shahab Nama.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Shahab Nama.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Jalal Baba
Thank you for editing the Abbottabad page. But Jalal Baba does belong to the history of Abbottabad. I made a few changes which were removed, even though I had proper citations. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arafehrahat (talk • contribs) 17:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You are referring to this passage that you added to the 'History' section of Abbottabad. Only the history of the city Abbottabad belongs in that section; Jalal Baba does not, neither do his political achievements that benefited the whole province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. It would certainly not be fair if we added the same passage to the history of every place in the province.
 * Secondly, please familiarise yourself with the best practices on how edits on Wikipedia should be made. Add messages to the bottom of any talk page, not the top. Always sign your talk page messages and replies using four tildes . Do not continue to make the selfsame edits while they are being discussed. I'll leave a message on your talk page to further guide you. However, it is alright to make mistakes. Wikipedians assume good faith behind constructive edits and try to further improve them to encyclopaedic quality.  Idell  (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Slowly (app) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Slowly (app) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Slowly (app) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. Celestina007 20:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Hakim Ziyech
Are you stupid or what? I'm not doing an editing test, I'm fixing the article. Stop doing this or I will report your account — Preceding unsigned comment added by BPL2007 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Rollback revoked
I have removed your rollback rights as I see several misuses in the last few days.
 * Special:Diff/973304343 and Special:Diff/973306581 are reverts of someone reverting vandalism.
 * Special:Diff/973113647 is the revert of what appears to be a good-faith edit; it is an explained removal of content.
 * Special:Diff/971974912 is the revert of someone adding a second relevant image to the article.
 * Special:Diff/971639692 is the revert of a good-faith grammar change.

I've only examined about 25 edits in which you used the revert tool, and I see 5 misuses. As such, I've removed it. I suggest waiting a few months before re-applying for the rights. only (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey there. I’d just like to tell you that Special:Diff/973306581 was an unintentional rollback. The previous rollback that I made on the same page came after the user had made huge edits and made threat(s) in their edit summaries, that clouded their constructive edit. Although Special:Diff/973113647 is an explained edit, it was based on a weak argument; the user removed references that would oppose their views and, for which, I’m sure other reliable sources could be cited. I could also show why I contested the last two edits.
 * I’ll just admit that I’ve been using the rollback feature to make reverts that I thought would be uncontroversial. Yes, you might find other such uses of rollback in my recent history. In short, a warning would’ve rectified my behaviour. I request you to reconsider this "punishment" and grant me the rollback right again. Thanks anyway. Idell  (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We're going to need to see the evidence of you understanding proper reverts rather than you saying you understand. What should/shouldn't be rollbacked is clear, so the fact that you were using it so many times based on your own applied standard/understanding of rollback is, is concerning. Again, we'll need to see you put in some more work on reverts to show you understand what should and shouldn't be reverted using tools.  only (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Pakistan is a Commonwealth country.
Pakistan is a Commonwealth country - and has been between 1947 and 1972, and since late 1989.

Pakistan's honours system was created in 1957, therefore, it is a Commonwealth honours system. - (124.197.55.28 (talk) 08:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC))


 * Pakistan is a member state of the Commonwealth of Nations, however that cannot be used as the sole or the major mode of recognition of the country. It’s membership has been terminated and suspended several times. There are more than 50 member states, so it’s not very specific either. Furthermore, its membership started way before 1957 or 1956, while the text of the article per your revision makes it sound like it did in, say, the 1950s and that it played a major role in establishing the civil decorations of Pakistan. Lastly, there is no such thing as a “Commonwealth honours system”. Idell  (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The term 'Commonwealth honours system' actually applies to the honours systems of all the Commonwealth countries, not only the British honours system and those of the other Commonwealth realms honours systems.

Pakistan's honours are conferred on a lot of people in other Commonwealth countries as well as Pakistan.

Pakistan and Fiji have both been suspended from the Commonwealth in the past 20 years, but suspension did not change their status as Commonwealth republics. - (124.197.55.28 (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC))


 * Please provide reliable sources to support the claims that something called "Commonwealth honours system" exists, that it applies to all the Commonwealth nations' decorations and that Pakistan's civil decorations are also awarded in other Commonwealth countries by their respective governments or monarchs (that doesn’t include the decorations awarded to foreign nationals by the Pakistani government itself).
 * Also note that Orders and decorations of the Commonwealth realms does not include Pakistan. Idell  (talk) 12:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Pakistan is a Commonwealth republic, as is The Gambia and the Maldives.

Their honours systems are all Commonwealth honours systems in their own right.

Commonwealth citizens have been conferred honours by the governments of these countries as recognition for services in relation to those countries.

The Indian honours system is often featuring recipients from Commonwealth countries other than India - especially from Canada, Fiji, Guyana, Mauritius, Trinidad and Tobago, and the United Kingdom for services in relation to the Indian diaspora in those countries. - (124.197.55.28 (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC))

The Signpost: 30 August 2020
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Editing news 2020 #4
Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

Reply tool


The Reply tool  has been available as a Beta Feature at the Arabic, Dutch, French and Hungarian Wikipedias since 31 March 2020. The first analysis showed positive results.


 * More than 300 editors used the Reply tool at these four Wikipedias. They  posted more than 7,400 replies during the study period.
 * Of the people who posted a comment with the Reply tool, about 70% of them used the tool multiple times. About 60% of them used it on multiple days.
 * Comments from Wikipedia editors are positive. One said, أعتقد أن الأداة تقدم فائدة ملحوظة؛ فهي تختصر الوقت لتقديم رد بدلًا من التنقل بالفأرة إلى وصلة تعديل القسم أو الصفحة، التي تكون بعيدة عن التعليق الأخير في الغالب، ويصل المساهم لصندوق التعديل بسرعة باستخدام الأداة.  ("I think the tool has a significant impact; it saves time to reply while the classic way is to move with a mouse to the Edit link to edit the section or the page which is generally far away from the comment. And the user reaches to the edit box so quickly to use the Reply tool.")

The Editing team released the Reply tool as a Beta Feature at eight other Wikipedias in early August. Those Wikipedias are in the Chinese, Czech, Georgian, Serbian, Sorani Kurdish, Swedish, Catalan, and Korean languages. If you would like to use the Reply tool at your wiki, please tell User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF).

The Reply tool is still in active development. Per request from the Dutch Wikipedia and other editors, you will be able to customize the edit summary. (The default edit summary is "Reply".) A "ping" feature is available in the Reply tool's visual editing mode. This feature searches for usernames. Per request from the Arabic Wikipedia, each wiki will be able to set its own preferred symbol for pinging editors. Per request from editors at the Japanese and Hungarian Wikipedias, each wiki can define a preferred signature prefix in the page MediaWiki:Discussiontools-signature-prefix. For example, some languages omit spaces before signatures. Other communities want to add a dash or a non-breaking space.

New requirements for user signatures

 * The new requirements for custom user signatures began on 6 July 2020. If you try to create a custom signature that does not meet the requirements, you will get an error message.
 * Existing custom signatures that do not meet the new requirements will be unaffected temporarily . Eventually, all custom signatures will need to meet the new requirements. You can check your signature and see lists of active editors whose custom signatures need to be corrected.  Volunteers have been contacting editors who need to change their custom signatures.  If you need to change your custom signature, then please read the help page.

Next: New discussion tool
Next, the team will be working on a tool for quickly and easily starting a new discussion section to a talk page. To follow the development of this new tool, please put the New Discussion Tool project page on your watchlist.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't delete content
Hey why have you deleted the content from Lahore. I spent hours creating the content from reliable sources. Next time you want to do this, do ask me because I habe spent hours in my contribution which you have deleted. Also don't do this in future without asking me. If you have issue with sources, you can write citation needed but don't delete the content. South Asian cities already lack information and are incomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maverick8017 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I had reverted your edits for numerous reasons that were explained using messages on your talk page and in the edit summaries. Although one must always explain what they changed on a page and why in their edit summaries, obvious cases of vandalism and disruptive editing may be reverted without giving an explanation. Many users have attempted to educate you about Wikipedia’s policies on reliable sources, should you follow them your edits would not be reverted. It is the job of an editor making major or controversial changes, or one whose edits have been reverted, to discuss those changes with others on the article’s talk page, not the other way around. Lastly, according to the guidelines, if content is not verifiable, it should not be on Wikipedia. Idell (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

(talk | contribs) was blocked with an expiration time of 31 hours (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Disruptive editing: WP:OR issues) View [ block log]

Last warning
All content added by me is veriable. If you delete my content again, you'll be banned from wikipedia. Take care next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maverick8017 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

(talk | contribs) was blocked with an expiration time of 31 hours (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Disruptive editing: WP:OR issues) View [ block log]

Edit on GCU, Lahore.
Hi. I spent a lot of time arranging and making that table in Academics section here. It would have been very nice of you to post on my talk page and notify me to update the sources to comply with WP policies. :(

Anyhow, let us work through it. So, if the institute's website is not a fit source for the programmes offered in that institute, then what are reliable sources ? I reckon the insitute's own website to be reliable, or else what is the purpose of it ? Where can one look for sources/citations to add them here? User:AsmiGCU 08:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello, ! I know how it must feel to have hours of your work reverted. Unconstructive edits are often reverted without notifying the editors who made them on their talk pages.
 * The educational institution's website can only be used to support basic facts, as there can be many problems with self-published sources which are not considered reliable on Wikipedia. But that’s not all of the problem. Adding such a table as if the article was a prospectus is unsuitable. You may not add every thing about a subject to its Wikipedia article. The two links to guideline pages that I provided in my edit summary would also have educated you on the matter. Furthermore, we tend to keep things consistent here and such a table cannot be seen on good articles about other educational institutions.
 * By the way, you need to sign your comments by typing four tildes  at the end, they’ll be automatically converted to your signature and time stamp once you have published your changes.  Idell  (talk) 09:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh,okay. But the current list is still lack luster, isn't it ? How about I add external links in front of the faculties? AsmiGCU (talk) 09:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Feel free to edit the current list, in a broader sense. It’s preferred if you cite other reliable sources along with the institution's own website. And no, you cannot add external links in the article's body; regarding that, see External links for further guidance. Idell  (talk) 09:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay. Thanks for the guidance ! AsmiGCU (talk) 10:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)