User talk:Smsarmad/Archives/2013/November

editing living person etc.
what part of a referenced article is a violation of any copyrights at any level is what really blows my mind. you are so full of yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.137.234 (talk) 07:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The source you presented copied from another Newspaper (probably from The News). Please read any linked pages in my previous reply. -- S M S   Talk 03:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

MM Alam revert
Smsarmad,

I had made a modification to the page, which cited an article on a reputable site (bharat rakshak). You reverted it on the grounds that the previous version was cited. I do not understand the basis, since had taken care to provide a cite that could be verified and the previous version had only an offline book where the cite was not easily verifiable. Further, given the wording of the wikipedia entry you prefer, since it is vague, it is unlikely to be verbatim extractr from the cite. Would appreciate your case & inputs on why this was reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barath s (talk • contribs) 16:22, October 25, 2013‎ (UTC)
 * Hello Barath. First of all you didn't provide a new source, it was already present in the article, instead you deleted one without citing any reason. Now that you have provided the reason so let me tell you that if you don't have access to a particular source that really isn't an acceptable reason for removing content and its cited source (see WP:SOURCEACCESS). Neither any assumptions are a justified reason for such an edit. So please present your case properly, pointing out exactly what is vague and why, supported by counter sources and/or Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. And repeatedly deleting sourced content without an acceptable reason can be considered disruptive and can lead to an administrative action. Thanks and Happy Editing. --  S M S   Talk 20:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Smsarmad,

I beleive the reason was provided in the edit.- that the basis of indian dispute was unclear given the wording of the article ("some such reason") and was clarified. Whereas your revert on the basis that no cite was provided is incorrect/specious at best and ignores the evidence at hand. A cite was provided for the specific claim. Even if the source was used/attributed elsewhere, it does not detract from the usage here. The bharat rakshak source is cited for a specific claim and sentence in the article. While I do not have access to the original source cited, I do have access to second hand info on it. From these wordings I have reasons to believe that the first source mentioned does not rely upon (Jon Guttman) does not substantially rely upon Indian sources/or opinions. This is not really an issue except when it is specifically used to talk about an indian opinion or case, in which situation it may perhaps be misleading (in fact an explicit disclaimer that jon guttman offered relevant here was omitted). I doubt if wikipedia policy really supports the use of potentially misleading or vague cites. Similarly second hand information would have it that "Fiza ya" share concerns similar to the ones I attributed and not the vague "some such reason" in the article. Again, it is not possible to verify whether the wording and citations would tend to be misleading. When it is suspected to be misleading, and alternate sources and wordings are possible, one should prefer the latter.

And suggesting that reversions without due cause (who gets to decide) can be disruptive and could invite administrative action sounds awfully like a threat. Especially when I have taken care to explain and notify and reach out for the reasons for the same and you have not, in your (initial) revert. May I invite you to state your opinion and case more explicitly whether you view this modification as disruptive?

Any Indo-pak article tends to run the risk of a flame war. One must therefore be especially cautious to adhere to fairness principles, which should invite the reader to make up his own mind. Stating an opposing point of view in a vague or wishy washy manner tends to lead towards a biased articles. Reverting those changes on an incorrect claim should be done with care.

Oh, and the relevant policies I believe to support my actions include this, [|this], and [|this] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barath s (talk • contribs)  10:06, October 31, 2013 (UTC)


 * First of all, please don't delete other's comment/reply, if you find any issue with it, report it at WP:ANI. And I never said anything like "no cite was provided", so please also don't attribute false statements to me.
 * Interestingly the Bharat rakshak source itself is based on the Fiza'ya: Psyche of the Pakistan Air Force and the author of this book is also acknowledged well in this regard. Pushpinder Singh Chopra after explaining the possible reasons of Kacker's downed aircraft says "Whatever may be the reason that Kacker lost his plane, Alam had no part in it." I hope now it explains what you call vague aspect of the text. If you still aren't satisfied, I think it would be best to remove "some other cause" and quote exactly what the author says. But that source and the text cited to it are going to stay there whether you like it or not. Similarly there is no issue of Neutrality here as it is almost the same thing what the author says. And there is no issue of reliability of this source, so WP:V and WP:RS doesn't apply here. If you think this source is not reliable consider taking this case to Reliable Source Noticeboard. -- S M S   Talk 21:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Delete other's comment : Honestly puzzled on which reply was deleted.

2. The explanation was that "reverted to sourced comments", which left the implication of revert being due to un-sourced comments. The only other attribution I could assume for it was of being arbitrary or mala-fide revert; which is why instead of assuming, I posted here and asked you for your case. The rest of the discussion is available here. And your initial response also tended to buttress the same - revert due to lack of cite, unless you honestly felt that I should present a case for any edit.

3. Bharat Rakshak including elements of Fiza ya: I am aware of that; remember where I said that I had only partial and second hand details? - This is part of that. I hope you realize that it also undermines your case about having Fiza ya etc not being sourced/cited ? and buttresses my edit which sources the article (which quotes from your preferred cite but includes more details), rather than yours ? Also, having read the article I cited, I was aware of it from the initial point, whereas your late cite makes me wonder if you had just read this now, and were making reverts based on ignorance of this earlier. I could have made a response earlier about wikipedia policy not being to slavishly allow for no deletes of cites leading to ever increasing number of cites :). It has made your attitude to the article/edits and responses hard to explain to myself other than in a negative sense. And I still hope that isn't the case.

4. > But that source and the text cited to it are going to stay there whether you like it or not.

Who died and made you god of that article or of cites ? :) May I humbly suggest that this is not in your hands ?

5. Neutrality : citing a portion of one article on one point while missing the larger discussion and other points and citing it in a way that is purposefully weak in presenting one side of the case is not neutral.

6. As mentioned, I did not have sufficient info either way to decide about reliable or unreliable or to report it as unreliable.(and had asked for more info on the talk page of the article)

7. I could offer some suggestions, but I doubt if you would be open to them.

CHANGE OF SPELLING IN url FOR BABLOO PRITHVIRAJ
Hi.I have recently edited facts on my husband actor Prithiveeraj.I did so since i found a lot of errors and misinformation about him.Some of the errors include mis-spelling of his name,birth place and wrong data of his career graph.There is another actor by the same name whose spelling and other information were being used for my husband.I have made most changes but i am unable to edit his spelling in the url.I also can verify the authenticity of the changes made since I am his wife and i believe there cannot be a more reliable source.I have abided by all the ethical code of conduct specified by your site.Kindly help me with the spelling in the url .I want to thank you for allowing me to do the necessary changes uptill now.

Looking forward to your suggestions and response at the earliest.

Thank you

Beena PrithiveerajBeenaprithiveeraj (talk) 07:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Beenaprithiveeraj. I have looked into the issue and I find that the article uses the same spell as used by the (very few) sources discussing the subject. And unfortunately we can not accept a source like yourself saying something about any of your relation, as currently we do not have a mechanism for verification of such claims. We need reliable published sources to determine the correct spell of a subject's name. Once you have reliable sources you yourself can change the URL by moving the article to the new title. You may like to take a look at the relevant policies/guidlines: Biography of Living Persons, Article Title guideline. Besides I am posting your concern at Wiki Project India's noticeboard, probably an editor more verse with Indian films/actors may help you in a better way. I hope it helps. -- S M S   Talk 11:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

NEED YOUR HELP
Dear SmSarmad,

I am really in need of help of someone who can help us in correcting an article on wikipedia. One of my friends has an article on Wikipedia but its some incorrect information, and also we try to update it as things change, but everytime we try and update the information one of the other editor/ or user goes and UNDOES our changes. This has been going on for a long time. We really need your help.

Can you please conatct me on (Redacted)

Sandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameszapper (talk • contribs) 08:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear SmSarmad, I am really in need of help of someone who can help us in correcting an article on wikipedia. One of my friends has an article on Wikipedia but its some incorrect information, and also we try to update it as things change, but everytime we try and update the information one of the other editor/ or user goes and UNDOES our changes. This has been going on for a long time. We really need your help.

Can you please conatct me on (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameszapper (talk • contribs) 08:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Jameszapper I already told you I don't see any need to discuss this issue off-wiki, so please point out what information is incorrect and I will correct it only if you provide a reliable source. -- S M S   Talk 08:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * See her similar post on WP:AN and its reply ES  &#38;L  10:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hie
hey, no offence.I will take care of it next time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapan joshi (talk • contribs) 09:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

MORE HELP TO EDIT Prithiveeraj-Babloo
Thank you very much for correcting the title.I would like to add that if you peruse the edited version you will find that a neutral point of view has been maintained & only wrong data has been altered.It has been done objectively & is mainly to avoid confusion since there are two individuals with the same name and in the same profession(but with different spellings,birthplace & career graph)

The box(with his photograph) on the right side of the page still carries Prithiveeraj's birthplace as Kerala when it is really 'Bangalore'.Please help me to correct that informatiion too.

Beena PrithiveerajBeenaprithiveeraj (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

RELIABLE SOURCE OF VERIFICATION FOR INFO ON Prithiveeraj-Babloo
Hi.As soon as I can get a newspaper or magazine to corroborate the reliability of information on Prithiveeraj-Babloo,I will request them to add it in Wikipedia.Till then please help me to carry the edited version

Thank you

Beena PrithiveerajBeenaprithiveeraj (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Durand Line, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shkin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Moor (film)
Hey bro i saw you editing Moor film article and I'm thankful for that. BUT as there's deletion tag by wikipedia on this article, A discussion is going on at Articles for deletion/Moor (film) , please  contribute your opinion their for this template removal.UBS (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, I saw that template and trying to improve that article before I comment at the deletion discussion. As much as I can see this article isn't going to be deleted but the tag will remain there for at least seven days before that deletion discussion is closed. Meanwhile it can happen that the nominator may withdraw the nomination. This deletion discussion is a regular process so nothing to worry about when the article is on a notable subject. -- S M S   Talk 14:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that's a good news, you are a pretty good editor, adding references is hard job to do, keep,Downward Dog in notice too :) UBS (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Pakistan User Group
You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Pakistan. This message was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Pakistan Standard Time
Hi, PST is Pacific Standard Time, and NOT Pakistan Standard Time. PKT is actually what you think PST to be! Please correct me if I am wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fouady (talk • contribs) 16:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There are multiple sources that call it PST:, . -- S M S   Talk 16:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Students of Pakistan
Hello Bro. Can you please kindly tell me why you have placed tag for deletion on the page I created despite the fact I provided all the references and sources and properly cited them. Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rehmansiddiq (talk • contribs) 14:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has set some thresholds for inclusion of article on any subject. The relevant guideline in this case is: Notability Criteria for Organisations. According to this criteria an organisation is considered notable if "it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject". Kindly read the linked pages for detail explanation of what secondary and reliable means. And further reading of the above criteria may also help you. Hope it helps. -- S M S   Talk 15:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Lalak Jan Shaheed Memorial Facebook Page
Dear Smsarmand, thanks for providing the opportunity to get back on the removed link. The page was started back in 2009 and a few contributors did approach for confirmation of dates and events etc. Since the page is moderated by Shaheed's son and a second cousin, so the information provided can be expected to be more accurate compared to that taken from other sources. If you still think the addition of link was not of any significant value, you may carry o with your decision.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imranhunzai (talk • contribs) 21:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Facebook is not considered as a reliable source here at Wikipedia, as anyone can create a page and add any information they want. Besides we do not have any mechanism to verify whether the page is moderated/created by one's close relative or not. You may like to read Reliable Source Guideline for more information on how to identify a reliable source. Happy Editing -- S M S   Talk 21:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Chitral
Hi Mr/Ms Smsarmand.

I see that you have moved the page 'Chitral Town' to 'Chitral'. I agree that it is commonly known as Chitral however there are three articles on Wikipedia on Chitral 1) Chitral 2) Chitral District 3) Chitral (princely state)

When seraching for 'Chitral', people usually want to know about the region as a whole, and not just the town of Chitral. The name of the page therefore causes confusion. I believe that to make Wikipedia more user friendly, this confusion needs to be remove by renaming 1 to Chitral Town.

Or alternatively, help us cleaning up the language and content of the page as the heading says the article is about Chitral Town while the content (most of it not referenced) talks about the district as a whole.

Regards, T, Jones — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skywalker1998 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello T. Jones. There is a note at the top of this article which I think is sufficient for any reader who opened this article but didn't intend to. I will surely like to help you in cleaning it up.
 * Besides I see that you are/seem to be operating more than one accounts, though it is permissible to use multiple accounts here at Wikipedia after you declare at each userpage that they are the same user but there are also some limitations in the use of multiple accounts. You may like to read our policy on multiple accounts. Happy Editing -- S M S   Talk 11:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013
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 Nick-D (talk) 06:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Amir Mehdi
Hello Smsarmad, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Amir Mehdi, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Can You Believe?
Can you believe that, Yasir72.multan is a female user. Her Name is Ayesha live in Pakistan. You can take more information about it by an administrator User User:RHaworth (Talk). She is his wikipedia girlfriend. See User_talk:RHaworth/2013_Oct_23 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.0.152 (talk) 06:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You can deceive others but not me. I know you are Yasir from Multan and not a girl. Since I know how this "I am a girl" and "Love You" tactics are used by Pakistani spammers. -- S M S   Talk 07:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yasir is not me, He is my x-boyfriend using the account. I love user RHaworth. You have not right to come between us(182.186.106.236 (talk) 13:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC))
 * Lol. "using the account" which account? Btw thanks for tagging it for speedy deletion. -- S M S   Talk 13:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Your edit
here, the source is not on about 1971, he is discussing periods afterwards. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing it out, I will remove it. -- S M S   Talk 23:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Utmanzai
I did a bit of work at Utmanzai (tribe) which has also caused some changes at Wazir (Pashtun tribe). I'll be doing more on those and Ahmadzai soon. My starting point was the document from the Naval Postgraduate School. I wouldn't rely too heavily on a US Navy source for commentary on the border areas of Pakistan - the potential for bias should be obvious - but they produce quite a lot of those fact sheets and they do have a core that seems to present a decent jumping-off point for the unsourced tribal articles etc. Before I dive into other such articles, can you perhaps just check that what I have used seems reasonable? - Sitush (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It could not get any better than this. Nice work. And I couldn't find any bias in the article nor in the source itself. Though I can guess which part if any can be regarded as bias or undue to mention (possibly by someone belonging to this tribe) but I don't think it is. -- S M S   Talk 14:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Doubtless there is more info out there and, yes, that bit might be considered undue by some people. Oddly enough, the issue was briefly mentioned in UK's The Guardian newspaper last weekend but I didn't see it until last night. I'll press on with some similar articles - few seemed to be referenced or, at least, referenced well. - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote
Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis