User talk:Merlinsage10

Armeena Khan
The sole purpose of this account has been to add promotional material to Armeena Khan. Please note that promotional editing is specifically disallowed by policy and such edits will be reverted. Also note in addition to being unpromotional, material added needs to be neutrally worded and supported by reliable sources.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits
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: 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.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
Please do not add or change content, as you did to Yalghaar, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Thomas.W talk 10:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

This is where I found out about her involvement in this film. Which one should I use?

http://www.dawn.com/news/1125718 http://galaxylollywood.wordpress.com/2014/07/20/yalgaar-to-bring-swat-operation-in-light/

Regards Merlinsage10

Comments at user Ponyo's talk page
Hi there, though I can understand why you are upset, you are missing a few important points through no fault of your own, because you are new. Although these comments won't win you any friends: "Anyway please cease and desist from interfering with this article as it comes across as malicious and motivated by vandalism. I am having to revert it back and forth which is becoming tiresome and childish. Unless you want to contribute then leave alone."

Wikipedia has established guidelines on notability. The general notability guideline states that people/places/things are generally considered notable if they have received significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Significant coverage typically means in-depth reporting, not just passing mentions. A reliable source is typically a main stream publication, newspapers, magazines, books, and other publications with a clear editorial policy and a presumption of fact-checking. This typically does not include blogs, Twitter accounts, fansites, promotional sites, and things of that nature. Bollywood is already at a disadvantage due to a lack of reliable sources as well as rampant corruption (India Online stopped reporting box office gross totals because of inaccuracies and corrupt practices, for instance).

The more specific guidelines for notability can be found at WP:NACTOR. The subject is generally considered notable if they: Thus far, it has not been clearly established that either the general notability guideline has been met, or the specific criteria at WP:NACTOR. Some of the sources that were in the article had to be removed because they neither mentioned Khan, nor did they support the claims being made. That doesn't look good to regular editors, what with us being a suspicious bunch and all. So I hope this helps you understand some of the problems we're having with the article so that maybe you can address them. As for your zinger against me, "I am honoured indeed. Is your ego also on your watch list?", I'm not sure how you're interpreting ego. All registered users have watchlists. Note the star icon at the top of your screen next to "View history". I literally added the article to my watchlist. I will point out that frustrated comments like "Added references to article to stop vandalism by Wikipolice" aren't constructive. There is no vandalism occurring at that article, and you shouldn't be slinging personal attacks. Anyhow, good luck! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Have had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
 * 2) Have a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
 * 3) Have made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.


 * Thanks for that. I understand why some of the sources had to be removed ( I checked them and some were broken - 404 - or just poor) and agree that the article was padded with hyperbole (Although puffery is quite an antiquated term imho). This is why I was attempting to improve the article.


 * But please look at it from my point of view. I thought I would learn the basics using this article in a quite corner of Wikipedia, before I move on to more contentious topics close to my heart, such as War and Politics. Remember at this stage I am having trouble even signing my own name (which I just found out how to do), so Newbies like me are a bit dangerous because we make changes all over the place without realising it.


 * But to have an experienced editor come down on me like a ton of bricks is not nice and further for him to bring in a couple of other editors and just cull my contribution whilst alleging I am somehow financially benefiting from this article is wrong. Then for him to go on and nominate the article for deletion comes across as vindictive. Its no skin off my nose whether this celeb gets deleted or not. But I do feel bullied and certainly unwelcome. Do remember I am being seeing a whole bunch of terms and shorthand that are new to me and perhaps you guys (considering your experience) have forgotten that it is daunting for a newbie, especially the html side in my case. All this whilst I keep messing up my own attempts at editing lead to frustration. But I am trying my best, e.g. you just taught me what "the star icon at the top of your screen next to View history" means.


 * Back to the article. I have travelled to that part of the World and there is a massive conflict, culturally, in terms of ideas, creatively and of course militarily. You have to be there to appreciate it. Pakistani cinema and TV is part of this and is undergoing a revival following its demise in the 1980's thanks to the Military dictator Zia, who dogmatised the country. I know the subject of my article meets the notability criteria. I can cite loads of stuff in Urdu language print publications but I am trying to use verifiable English media. I am trawling through the various sources.


 * The criteria for notability is:
 * 1.Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions = Yes. She has starred the Bollywood film(Its too much), 2 of Pakistan's biggest films ("Bin Roe Ansoo" and "Yalghaar") multiple soaps including the highest rated soap in 2014.
 * 2.Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. = Known by millions in South Asia. Her official fans pages (Facebook, twitter etc) have a significant following. The viewing figures of her soap are huge comparatively.
 * 3.Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Her notability lies in the fact that she is uniquely working across 3 industries, Bollywood, Europe and Pakistan, thereby bridging the 3 industries. For example I just came across this http://sub.festival-cannes.fr/SfcCatalogue/MovieDetail/2ff594a3-1d0a-4566-aae2-3118d0dd8177 . She is the only Pakistani actress to have been in a Cannes nominated film, not once but twice. All this whilst working in one of the most dangerous places on Earth (amidst car bombs and suicide attacks).


 * Of course the irony of it is no one in her Home country of Canada has heard of her. So I thought I would start an article.


 * Merlinsage10 (talk) 01:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)