User talk:Samee/Archives/2014/November

Happy Halloween!!!
Cheers! &#34;We could read for-EVER&#59; reading round the wiki!&#34; (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup - Round 2
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Nov 2

 * You actually have problem with the usage of the word "Islamic terrorism", as you did here. Fai  zan  16:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is in fact you who has problem. Their cause/motive is Zarb-e-Azb operation against them and the Islamic terrorism is not the motive but the act. You are getting biased with the word Islamic terrorism, repeating it again and again all the way. Instead see this  SAMI  talk 16:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This 2014 Wagah Border attack could simply be redirected to your article. Why did you speedy it? Fai  zan  17:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This was not intentional. Had the article I started been the duplicate, I would have placed speedy deletion tag on it.  SAMI  talk 17:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * An IP from India did elucidate it here, and I was doing the same. Their motive was not "itself Operation Zarb-e-Azb" but in fact was "response to the operation". And that response was in the form of terrorism. Fai  zan  17:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * For me motive as in the Infobox is the reason for a certain course of action and the reason they attacked civilian people was the Operation Zarb-e-Azb, which is against the militants. I was still not convinced with the edit by an anonymous user. But I appreciated the effort on the part of the user to settle the dispute, which is essential for maintaining peace and love among Wikipedia memebers. Template documentation also defines motive as the reason why the attack was carried out and while their terrorist act is the response, which I also stated earlier but does not come under motive as motive itself defines why the action was carried out. When I wrote Motive as Operation Zarb-e-Azb against militants it was clear that the cause of their attack is the Zarb-e-Azb against them.  SAMI  talk 17:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Salam Samee
I have reverted one of your edit (2014 Wagah border suicide attack)...For perpetrators you wrote Jundullah and Jamaat ul Ahrar...which is not correct since both have claim responsibility for the attack separately.... Read here http://www.dawn.com/news/1142307/wagah-attack-ahrar-claim-of-responsibility-appears-more-credible Thank youSaadkhan12345 (talk) 06:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Wagah suicide attack.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wagah suicide attack.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Habib University
Thank you for reviewing the draft:Habib University. Copy violation needs clarification. I attempted to have material sources from independent, reliable, published sources and provided their references (vide ref list). However, contents matching needs replacement of words, belief or not this was not in my knowledge. Plz see, before construction of my building I visited a building not the whole but its two rooms only, as per my requirement (lay out). I referred visit of building and this building's other rooms which I did not visit were matching to my building. Nannadeem (talk) 09:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews
Hello. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular. The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered. If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.) If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with. Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors. I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC). Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Mubashir Luqman, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. See talkpage. DMacks (talk) 09:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither I see anything destructive in moving the page Mubashir Luqman to Mubashir Lucman nor it violates Wikipedia guidelines. I did quote the reason as his official, registered spellings. The move request at talkpage is absurd. See multiple references 1, 2, 3. Issuing a warning was also illogical. As I tagged the page Azad Kashmir / Pakistan occupied Kashmir for deletion just because it was a misnomer and created due to persistent page moves among titles viz. 'Pakistan-occupied Kashmir', 'Azad Kashmir' and 'Azad Kashmir / Pakistan occupied Kashmir' and you declined the request. Yes, I failed to check the previous consensus held before tagging but this does not mean I be scrutinized for my past edits and be issued warning. Would you please mention what has been violated in moving page from Mubashir Luqman to Mubashir Lucman. It was in accordance to the guideline.  SAMI  talk 09:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Consensus overrides bold. Or WP:RM requires discussion if it's likely to be controversial or disputed, and evidence of a previous consensus exactly opposite what you think is pretty good evidence that your idea (although it might be "right") is not undisputed. DMacks (talk) 13:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree consensus overrides bold. I have already confessed that I could not see the discussion held against Azad Kashmir / Pakistan occupied Kashmir. The title of the page looked me too odd and I tagged it. I have no objection to your denial. But as far as Mubashir Lucman is concerned, there was no established consensus but a mere request with a dead link. Does Bold fail here? His official twitter account, the channel where he works, the program he hosts and even Google Infobox all show up Mubashir Lucman instead of the general spellings of Luqman. I have asked for your explanation regarding this uncontroversial topic.  SAMI  talk 17:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * PS Just because few references wrote Luqman does not mean it is correct in this case. The more reliable sites have written Lucman. Definitely it violates Wikipedia guidelines. 17:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Bold doesn't fail on its face. But it's not "obviously and undisputably incorrect" given at least some people previously had the other position and some of the cited refs use the other spelling; so after B, R gets us back to the previous stable state (which was the result of the previous WP:RM process) to allow D to get a clearer explanation of the rationale and see if others (still) have alternate positions. That way talkpage stands as the record of the new consensus. DMacks (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Wapvix.com
Hi Samee; not sure what happened with my Wapvix.com speedy deletion call; I did it from the New Page Review console and I'm not sure if it's a bit buggy or whatever. Anyway, just wanted to say thanks for fixing it :-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)