User talk:Sansonic/Archive 1

Leeds and Manchester
Is there any particular reason why you're making those changes? The wording doesn't imply that Leeds is bigger than Manchester, or vice versa. By adding in Manchester you're claiming that it is bigger than Leeds - assertions like that need to be verified through reliable sources. GBT/C 21:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't intend to claim that Manchester is bigger than leeds. Wikipedia is free to edit, you can easily adjust what I have is said. Feel free to adjust what i've said if it makes you feel better.

Welcome
Thanks for your edits to Demography of Greater Manchester. One of Wikipedia's core policies if verifiability to make it are reliable as possible. Therefore, unless you provide reliable sources for your information when you edit, your changes will be reverted. I have done this on the above article, but if you can find a source to back up the statement, please re-add it. Happy editing, Nev1 (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Costa karachi.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Costa karachi.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Starbucks Pakistan.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Starbucks Pakistan.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop
Please stop adding unsourced claims to Starbucks, removing information from Costa Coffee, and uploading images that lack free licenses. If you continue, this will be considered to be vandalism, and you will be blocked. You commented that "Comparing Starbucks to rival chains is not irrelevent. Wikipedia is not an advertisement for Starbucks and I am simply using proffesional journalistic techniques." This is WP:Original research, and is not permitted. Fences and windows (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to Starbucks
This is not an article on the rise of the Pakistani middle classes nor on Costa Coffee. Most of the references you give do not even mention Starbucks. The one that does suggests a proprietor sells about 15 cups of Starbucks coffee a day, hardly unbridled demand. I suggest you take it to the Starbucks talk page if you wish to persist. --Michael Johnson (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Sansonic for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Fences and windows (talk) 01:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Once more, with feeling
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Sansonic for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Fences and windows (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below.
 * Further sockpuppetry will result in an indefinite block. Please stop. KnightLago (talk) 04:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Sansonic for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Fences and windows (talk) 04:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

My advice
Sit out the block, wipe the slate clean, then come back and contribute constructively. The edits you made as Westernpit were in some cases constructive. Read over the guidelines for editing, especially WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, WP:COPYVIO, WP:OR and WP:BRD, as well as WP:SOCKPUPPET and the other behavioural standards. Wikipedia editing means collaborating with other editors to improve the encyclopedia. You don't always get your way, but by keeping the guidelines in mind most conflict can be avoided. Fences and windows (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll support Fences here. We need good editors on Wikipedia, and from a variety of background. Do your time, take the opportunity to review our rules, and then come back and do some constructive editing. --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

- Thanks for the advice guys. Can someone please tell me when my block will end?


 * Unless it was extended after your last sockpuppery episode (and it does not appear to have been), it should end on the 18th May. --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Citibank.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Citibank.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Citibank.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Citibank.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Fences and windows (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back
I saw a couple of your edits come up on my Watchlist; doesn't time fly. I'm afraid I had to list the Citibank photo as possibly unfree, as the source on Flickr lists the image as "All rights reserved". Also, be careful not to make edits that favour Pakistan over India, such as this edit appears to:. See WP:NPOV. Oh, and Urban dictionary isn't a WP:RELIABLE source! It is user edited. Happy editing. Fences and windows (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Its nice to be back, thanks for your advice!

Starbucks
I reverted your edit that said that those who smashed the Starbucks after the demonstration were "Asian" as it wasn't in the sources. Fences and windows (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

June 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. Jenuk1985 |  Talk  17:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Minor Edits
The "minor edit" function of Wikipedia should not be used when you are adding content to articles (as with Conservative Party (UK), which always needs to be reviewed. If you could try to follow WP:MINOR, this should help ensure no-one thinks you are trying to hide controversial edits through use of this feature. If you do this accidentaly, you should make a dummy edit pointing out your mistake in the edit summary. Thanks, - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 18:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I note this was noted in a sockpuppet investigation - i.e. you are aware of this problem. Since the edit summary itself was fine, I'll go no further. However, I suggest you be more careful in future about what does and doesn't constitute a minor edit. The link above may help in this regard. - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 18:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Join us?


File copyright problem with File:Saira khan.gif
Thank you for uploading File:Saira khan.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyrighted images of living people
According to Wikipedia policy (WP:NFCC, which references NFC - see Images Point 12), copyrighted images of living people are not used, except in a few very limited circumstances. Please don't upload such pictures to Wikipedia. Thanks, Black Kite 00:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester August Newsletter, Issue XVIII
Nev1 (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Amir khan Conservative.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Amir khan Conservative.JPG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Max&Paddy Pakistani.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Max&Paddy Pakistani.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --(ESkog)(Talk) 15:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

British Pakistani
Hey friend a Indian pov pusher user:wikireader41 has again re added his Indian pov trash to the articles irrelevant info should be removed Indian trolls need to be put in there place please remove his Hindutva pov push 86.153.133.47 (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Indian vandal back again British Pakistani
Wikireader41 the Indian pov pusher is back and again is adding his Vedic trash to the British Pakistani article 86.151.127.22 (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Glodwick
Thanks for the edit. I think that's more neutral. Just wondered, out of curiosity, if you're from or associated with Glodwick and were interested in doing a bit of a vevamp to the article? --Jza84 | Talk  14:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Poverty in Pakistan
Please stop adding source less info on the page and comparing it to Indian poverty this is pov 86.162.67.94 (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)