User talk:Sahirshah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Sahir, I have moved your contribution about the methane in Lake Kivu from Kivu to Lake Kivu, where it is more appropriate. I hope you don't mind. One way to improve the article is to add the source of the information, e.g. a website or publication information of the journal or book. Thanks again, BanyanTree 16:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks. :) SahirShah 16:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

January 2013[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Julius Caesar into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Most editors, including myself, have done this when they were new Dougweller (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I have not copied material between pages before. I was not aware of this convention of adding attribution. Shall follow this in the future. Thanks. --Sahir 05:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Doug, I've replaced the text I copied from the Julius Caesar page and wrote my own. It seemed the easiest way out because using copied template seems so horribly complicated (shall read the help pages and learn how to use it later). My objective was to quickly expunge the portion presenting events from Shakespeare's drama as fact. It's done now :) -- Sahir 05:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Sahirshah. Mark Antony is certainly in need of improvement, and efforts to do so are good. However, constructing your own historical narrative based on ancient sources is a form of original research. Could I encourage you to seek out some secondary sources? I find the Cambridge Ancient History to be a sober and reliable source on Roman history, for instance. Sorry to dump this comment on top of Doug's cautions about copying. Cynwolfe (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Cynwolf it's not original research, I have just reworded information from many pages into a small paragraph(with appropriate references) to replace a glaring error(Shakespeare's drama cited as fact). I am in the midst of writing the Mark Antony page in the Malayalam Wikipedia from scratch ml:മാർക്കസ് അന്റോണിയസ്, so I really cannot spare much time for improving the English page on Mark Antony. Though I can see that it needs some serious improvement, this is the best I can do at the moment. Sorry :) --Sahir 06:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Abacus[edit]

The consensus at AFD was to redirect the article - which means you don't get to recreate it immediately. I have no objection to changing the target, but if another editor objects you really will need to discuss it at WP:RFD. You may also wish to review our policy on Assuming Good Faith; just because I reverted a decision that you made does not mean that I did not review the AFD or read the context. I don't really care where the article redirects, honestly, just that it remains a redirect as determined by consensus at the AFD, and in the absence of newer consensus to the contrary. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I did not see any evidence of consensus on the discussion page. If any editor disagrees he needs to provide adequate citation that validates his viewpoint. I am shocked by your statement "I don't really care where the article redirects, honestly, just that it remains a redirect as determined by consensus at the AFD, and in the absence of newer consensus to the contrary." It seems to be a classic case of failing to see the woods for the trees. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and having correct information in it is just as important as WP, AFD , or whatever. --Sahir 17:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The consensus is up at the top, where the closing admin said "The result was redirect to Subsidiaries of Royal Brunei Airlines#Abacus Distribution Systems". If you disagree that it should be a redirect, really and truly you need to go to deletion review. If you disagree with the target of that redirect, go ahead and change it around (as you already have) - but be prepared to discuss it if other editors disagree. My focus is less on the target of the redirect (as clearly you know more about it than I), and more on the fact that a discussion came to the consensus (thin though it may be) that the article should be a redirect. Your first edit undid that consensus, which isn't on the list of things you get to do in the days immediately after an AFD - which is why I reversed it. If the redirect points where you believe it should, and no one has objected, then you're good to go. I'm all about accuracy, but in some cases one editor's accuracy does not match another's - that's why we discuss these things, which is all I said above. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I am not disputing the closure of the page. All GDS pages can be merged into the Global Distribution System page with sub sections on each GDS. That's not the point, I was just appalled at the way the discussion was conducted and a decision taken without consensus. One editor said delete, and two said do not delete. A fourth one appears on the scene saying : these two guys who voted "do not delete" seem to be shady characters so their votes don't count, I quote his words "Aside from the very suspicious two above 'do not delete' votes with very few edit counts, this appears to be a non-notable product of a non-notable company. Redirect to the only mention of the company. Mkdwt" (very rude too to make that sort of comment about another editor's vote). It was apparent he had no clue about the subject and his word was taken as the gospel truth just because he got 16,000 edits. "Cult of personality" may be okay for North Korea, but this is Wikipedia [joke]. In short, what I am saying is, even if any of the editors participating in the discussion don't have a clue about the subject they can obtain some rudimentary information by doing a Google search. They should not jump to conclusions without making an attempt to ascertain facts  :) --Sahir 22:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
None of the things I said above have anything to do with you Ultraexactzz, or your action, I do not dispute your reversal, our paths just crossed in the course of an attempt to restore some semblance of accuracy. So, peace :)--Sahir 22:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)