User talk:Smsarmad/Archives/2012/July

Removal of sourced content using in-appropriate edit summary
‎With this edit you have effectively removed a well sourced content from a neutral encyclopedia, with a in-appropriate edit summary, self revert now. shouldn't you follow WP:BRD which you use so often -- D Big X ray  12:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Already reverted by another editor. hope you will participate in talk rather than joining the edit war-- D Big X ray  12:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry that was massive source falsification, go to talk page to discuss that issue, besides I never referred to WP:BRD as far as I can remember. -- S M S  Talk 12:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The content is properly sourced, i have removed the phrase "War started on". removing the fully sourced para under the disguise of source falsification is not expected from an experienced editor like you.
 * About BRD. Its high time for you to read and learn WP:BRD if you havent yet. -- D Big X ray  13:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I know what is WP:BRD, I only said that I never referred to it in any discussion as you claimed that I often do (So in short don't make false claims). Secondly I never said that its the only one problem with that para, and by saying that "...under the disguise..." I will advice you to always assume good faith while considering other editor's edits. Lastly I have already said what I had to and I am not interested in edit war. -- S M S  Talk 13:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * if you are not interested in an edit war, then you should comment on the talk page, make a consensus and then edit depending on the consensus. rather than joining another R in the BRRRRD, cheers -- D Big X ray  13:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you once again read the related discussion on the talk page you will find that I have already commented there, if I find anyone interested in discussion there instead of edit warring, I will happily discuss the issue further. -- S M S  Talk 13:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * from what I can observe your reverts in edit war (18:13, 4 July 2012) preceeded your talk page comments on 18:17, 4 July 2012.-- D Big X ray   13:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow! what an observation! I hope you use your observation abilities on understanding other editor's concerns regarding the content you repeatedly edit warred into the article too. -- S M S  Talk 13:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947 Is what i am talking about. Ciao-- D Big X ray  13:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Note
I have added your name at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, since your are involved in it. Regards, ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 12:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Opinion needed
 Mar4d  ( talk ) 04:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism
Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. It is highly appreciated :) Anir1uph | talk | contrib 17:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. -- S M S  Talk 20:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan Air Force
I have protected Pakistan Air Force from editing by IPs to encourage some talk page discussion. Please dont get caught up in an edit war it is best to raise it on the talk page and get help from one of the related projects or request help from an admin, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, but was it really content related edit war? Please correct me if I am wrong because I would not have reverted this many times if I considered it one. Besides I have commented at the talk also, so please take a look again and correct me so I can avoid these types of reversion. Thanks -- S M S  Talk 12:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Need to take care, a user was adding new content which was challenged, it wasnt really vandalism just not appropriate for the article. Certainly would not come under the WP:3RR exception which says Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language. MilborneOne (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok! thanks for correcting me, will take care of that in future. -- S M S  Talk 12:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012
I noticed that you have posted comments to the page User talk:Mar4d in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Feel free to remove it once you have read it. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 12:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How about you quit stalking these two or go to ANI and get a boomerang for disrupting established users' interaction? -- lTopGunl (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, one should interact. But as per Talk page guidelines, they should interact in English. If that is a personal message, he could have emailed him. I am repeating again, it is just a friendly note, which he can remove any time. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 12:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry I am not going to remove it, some time you need to keep rubbish like this. Btw learn not to template established users, if you have got some issue with it, go to ANI. -- S M S  Talk 12:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I don't believe in what you said. If there is a policy which says that this should not be done, then I am ready to follow it. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 12:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a general rule to converse in English. And an administrator (Salvio) has already shown by action that it is ok do to so at times as far as you are not doing it all the time. As said, if you do have a problem, go to ANI as apparently your warning was hostile. -- lTopGunl (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with TG. Vibhi, there is no disruption if comments are made in other lang where the content is of no use to other editors. Also, please avoid templates as this message can also be conveyed in a normal manner. But I don't think that even a message was needed as this was done once. Obviously if continued, then it is valid to comment but not in this case. — TheSpecialUser  ( TSU ) 15:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't like to repeat; there is no policy which says that established users should not be templated. Read the note first. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 15:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Asal Uttar
Please provide a page number so I can verify that edit. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see you already have reverted at the article so I guess there is no use of discussion. -- S M S  Talk 16:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was Dictionary of Battles and Sieges: F-O, not the volume you cited. It also did not support the edit. This is the second time you have used this source on this article and it has failed verification, please be a little more careful. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all that source was already in the article if you have noted, I didn't add it. The relevant content is on page 525 and 562 of this source. And it is gazillionth time that you are removing/reverting without checking the source thoroughly. -- S M S  Talk 16:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No you used it to cite an edit and it was the wrong volume. It does not matter if the source was already there, you used it. And I checked the source before reverting, please do not make baseless accusations. The source did not even remotely support your edit, nor did it do so the last time. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Where did I mention the volume? -- S M S  Talk 17:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to be funny? Were in that book does it say the battle was a stalemate? This is a gross misrepresentation of the source and I strongly urge you to self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No.
 * ...to the North near Asal Uttar. However, India could not achieve a breakthrough and eventually had to accept a ceasefire...
 * -- S M S  Talk 17:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That was for the war, not the battle, self revert please. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No that is for this battle per my understanding. -- S M S  Talk 17:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your understanding is wrong, for the final time, please self revert. You are misrepresenting the source for the third time. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry I was going to do that, but damn power break down, but looks like you got what you wanted as usual. -- S M S  Talk 19:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Hi, Smsarmad Though there are unjust rules or behaviours, but there is justice too.


 * Thank you Justice. -- S M S  Talk 16:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
thanks for help --Shahzadapashtun (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

2012 Sport Club Corinthians Paulista season
Can you please advise User: EmadIV, who according to his profile is a "recent changes patroller", to stop deleting my cited work. I've created & maintained 2012 Sport Club Corinthians Paulista season & while he claimed I deleted a Football Squad template, I updated it. Only to see him delete my update twice. Also, deleted CITED Match Reports I update LIVE on match days, Without any claims or reasons to do so. WHY? 1dayFloripa (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Btw, I contacted him as he did with me to tell him to cease his careless deletion, have not recieved any response. 1dayFloripa (talk) 04:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Question
I note you have been given account creator rights, I am curious as to how this happened as you have been blocked for sock puppetry? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I seriously don't understand what are you up to now, probably you can ask the admin who did it or at ANI for community review. I will welcome any discussion that you start about it at ANI. -- S M S  Talk 17:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not up to anything, one of the rules for account creator rights is that you have never been blocked for sock puppetry, I was just wondering why this was ignored in your case. I am just curious is all, don't panic. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Per your response I have asked the chap who put the icon on your userpage here Darkness Shines (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Domestic violence in Pakistan
You just duplicated content which is already in the article, you also made it look as though it was now law, it is not. Please self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out, will do the necessary correction in the body too. The content in lead section is actually duplication of the entire body in summarized form. Besides that bill was passed by the Senate, the last authority, after which President has to sign it, even if he doesn't do that in 30 days, the bill is deemed a law, so actually that is just a formality. -- S M S  Talk 20:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait a moment, this source from April 17, 2012 says it is deadlocked in parliament your source is from Feb 2012, how is it law if it is still deadlocked in parliament 3 months after your source said it passed? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That confused me too, actually that bill went to senate in this form and was passed by the senate in this form. Actually the bill is only enacted in Islamabad Capital Territory. Making corrections -- S M S  Talk 20:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that's a crappy law as it does not cover the whole country, bloody ridiculous in fact. Women ought to be given protection under the law everywhere. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * At least people are discussing to enact that, and at least it has already been enacted at some place, so it is never crappy. You are too pessimist. -- S M S  Talk 20:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I am to pessimistic :o) It would have made a great hook to be honest, something historical like that. Soon it will be law though, they can't stop progress forever. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with you and it can still be. Besides sometimes a law is introduced in limited territory to see how useful it is before applying it to all the country. -- S M S  Talk 21:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indo-Pakistani War of 1971-Inside Secret
Actually, no, I wouldn't want to. I can't remember what it is, but there's something with the coding for AFD closures that I don't understand. Only once did I attempt it, and I ended up closing the entire day's AFD log. It's not a big deal; anyone who understands the coding may close an AFD in cases like this, and it should happen before long. Nyttend (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind, my stalker friend did it. Thanks! -- S M S  Talk 20:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)