User talk:Sajjad Altaf
|This user has been mentioned by a media organisation:|
Mr. Altaf has written entire Wikipedia articles on his phone, including one about Noor Pur Baghan, his hometown in Pakistan, and disputes the idea that smartphones are passive devices. “If you are using your phone, you cannot just listen but not talk,” he said. “You cannot just receive an email but not reply to it.”"
|This user has been mentioned by a media organisation:|
- 1 Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry
- 2 Sign Your Posts
- 3 Terrorism Section in WP:PBUH
- 4 Disambiguation link in Noor Pur Baghan
- 5 Talkback About WP:PBUH
- 6 Road Transportation in Pakistan
- 7 Akbar I
- 8 New York Times calling
- 9 Images in Pakistan
- 10 Disambiguation link in "List of people from Jhelum"
- 11 Not a good example
- 12 Wikimedia
- 13 WikiProject Pakistan
- 14 Edit Summary Notice
- 15 Findlay City School District
- 16 Disambiguation link in Maula Jatt
- 17 Talk About Issues Resulting From A Vote (Part I)
- 18 Ghulam Ahmad (engineer)
- 19 Multan Division
- 20 Talk About Issues Resulting From A Vote (Part II)
- 21 Talk About Issues Resulting From A Vote (Part III)
- 22 Disambiguation link in Phaphra
- 23 Dera Ghazi Khan and Bahawalpur
- 24 Iqbal Azim
- 25 Talk About Issues Resulting From A Vote (Part IV)
Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry
Hello, I'm Smsarmad. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SMS Talk 16:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Sign Your Posts
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Terrorism Section in WP:PBUH
I don't see anything at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles. That's where the discussion should be taking place. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've replied there. Usually new comments go at the bottom of the page so I moved the whole section there. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Noor Pur Baghan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dina (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.
Talkback About WP:PBUH
Road Transportation in Pakistan
Its waste of time reverting back edits. Where is it mentioned in the given reference that "Pakistan has better roads than India"? If read properly, it states that India has better road density by population and also by area. And a sentence states that India lags behind other developing countries in terms of infrastructure ecept for Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. Any trustworthy references are not available on search. Moreover, you compare it yourself if you want Indian Roads. Revert your edit yourself if you feel I am right. ChitranshGaurav 12:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Original edit was not done by me, it was done by someone else and I am sure it was added after doing a thorough research. When something is added to a document it should only be removed providing correct basis.
When the edit was reverted by you, I checked the reference document to find the basis for initial add and then I tried to find the basis for your revert, I found the basis for initial add but did not find the basis for your revert.
The basis I found for initial add was on page 4. There is a table there which has a column named "Paved roads %" and lists the comparison between the countries which shows that India has 62.6% of it's roads paved compared to Pakistan's 64.7%. Bangladesh and Indonesia has a lesser percentage than Pakistan as well. That table was the basis for initial add. I was just trying to preserve the integrity of the document. I do not think anything should be removed from the document unless there is something out there to counterfeit the claim.
The text in article "Pakistan" only talks about road system being better than India and not about the whole transportation system which is true considering the paved road comparison. More paved roads means better road system.
In the very next sentence it talks about what Pakistan lags behind of India and I think the whole text combined was best, fair and impartial assessment. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, But we cannot compare the roads on that basis alone. In the same reference in other tables, it is mentioned that road density by area and by population is better in India (Page no. 6). This is another vital indicator for road infrastructure. I forgot to mention this in the above post and that was the basis of my reply. But I am not an experienced, regular wikipedian, so I totally leave it up to you to remove it or not. But, if taken: paved roads means better roads system, then I agree with you. Regards. ChitranshGaurav 08:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
hello, thank you for your message. The Mughal emperors link is already included at the bottom in the navigation link, therefore it does not have to be included again under see also. And I don't see what Mughal weapons have to do with Akbar himself, unless there is a specific weapon that can be attributed to him or his time. Gryffindor (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
New York Times calling
Hi Sajjad -- I write about Wikipedia for the New York Times, and I am trying to look at how Wikipedia is incorporating editing via mobile phone. I noticed that you have edited exclusively via mobile phone. If you have the time and inclination to discuss your editing experiences can you drop me an email at email@example.com. Looking forward to speaking with you. chomsky1 16:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Chomsky1
Images in Pakistan
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Pakistan, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- The image used does not violate non-free image policy, I am placing it back while we discuss and come to a conclusion whether it violates non-free usage policy or not.
- P.S. You folks really like to slap warnings on newcomers, I don't think it is the best of the ways to start a conversation. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of people from Jhelum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gah (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.
Not a good example
It's good that your editing fr/ your mobile device, BUT Noor Pur Baghan wasn't a good example to place in the NYTimes. Most of the information comes from an unverifiable primary source--yourself--which is against Wikipedia editing guidelines.
- I completely respect your opinion but honestly I do not work for New York Times.
New York Times is an independent media and they make their own decisions.
Article by Noam Cohen does not talk about authenticity of article Noor Pur Baghan.
The mention of the article is in terms of a Wikipedian who mostly edits from his mobile device.
Opinions differ and we got to respect them.
Hi My name is Kenan. I am the mobile product manager for the Wikimedia foundation. I see that you have thoughts on mobile editing and I'd love to talk to you about your mobile editing habits and opinions. What is the best way for me to contact you? Thanks! --KWang (WMF) (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- I cannot provide my email address or phone number here unless you want to provide me yours so I can contact you otherwise we can talk here.
- You can refer to my user page here and refer to the section "Improvement Suggestions for Wikipedia Mobile Editor" for improvement suggestions that I have posted there. Then let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks Sajjad Altaf (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, i did not know about such a project, i will surely like to be part of an endeavor like that, i have seen stuff marked for deletion about Pakistan and had no idea how to save it from occurring for example an image of Now or Never was deleted from Wikipedia Commons recently and i could not do anything about it except just to feel sorry about it.
- P.S. You are the first administrator who welcomed me to Wikipedia, otherwise i felt like i am being pushed back and discouraged, so thank you for that as well.Sajjad Altaf (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- You're welcome :) Would be great to see you in the project. The Pakistani community on Wikipedia is quite small and we always encourage more and more active users to join our folds. Feel free to contact me or leave messages on the Pakistan WikiProject noticeboard for any queries. PS: I am not an admin, just another user who edits here. As far as I know, there is no Pakistani admin on the English Wikipedia. Though I am sure I wouldn't mind being one :) Mar4d (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Edit Summary Notice
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary with every edit. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history.
The edit summary appears in:
- User contributions
- Recent changes
- Revision differences
- IRC channels
- Related changes
- New pages list and
- Article editing history
Findlay City School District
Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. While the content of your edits may be true, I have removed it because its depth or nature of detail are not consistent with our objectives as an encyclopedia. I recognize that your edit was made in good faith and hope you will familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia is not so we may collaborate in the future. Thank you! Super48paul (talk) 11:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maula Jatt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rangeela (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.
Talk About Issues Resulting From A Vote (Part I)
Your recent editing history at Noor Pur Baghan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Sitush (talk) 12:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hello Sajjad, I would like to note a couple of points that I have observed regarding the issues that are being taken up at various places:
- Starting with Professor Iqbal Azeem, you say that "Professor Iqbal Azeem" is his common name and per WP:UCN it should be the article title. Can you prove that "Professor Iqbal Azeem" is more common than "Iqbal Azeem"? Because a simple Google search tells different story. Also the only source cited in the article is an unreliable source.
- Noor Pur Baghan. I have been watching this article since you posted a related message at WT:PAK. What I saw there was that some experienced users were already there and had made you known their concerns regarding the content of the article. Since I shared the same concerns as them so I felt my involvement would more likely discourage you, that I didn't want to happen. Even if you had not posted a message at WT:PAK, I would have landed at that article somehow and did the same what Sitush did regardless of whoever has written it. You would find in my contributions similar edits to a number of articles. The source (Google Maps) you are using is unreliable for the content you are using it for. As described earlier most of the place tags at Google Maps is a User Generated Content. Anyone can place them and anyone can request to alter them. I also have a concern regarding images at that article, I find some of them at Facebook. Can you please verify that you own them and they comply with Wikipedia:Image use policy.
- About H. A. Rose as a source. It is not just Sitush's opinion, a number of editors agree that Rose's work about subcontinent's castes is not a reliable source. And a number of editors trust Sitush when it comes to South Asia's castes/tribes/social groups.
- I do like to comment on your AfD comments/!voting as I do find them problematic but I would not until some of them are closed. But I suggest you should read Deletion policy, Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.
- About Sitush's edit following your comment at a deletion discussion. It was natural reaction to your comment (that I already said I find problematic). A user if finds some problems with another user's edits, it is likely that he will check his other edits also and is permitted at Wikipedia (with some exceptions). So I suggest you should Assume Good Faith and concentrate more on the problems identified.
- About Three revert rule. It is just a bright line that if crossed is definitely going to get you blocked. But you can even get blocked if you have not crossed this line but were edit warring.
- I don't want you to be discouraged by all of this, just want you to learn more about how things work here. Many of us had similar problems with our editing when we joined some editors like me have been through bigger blunders, so try to listen what other advise you. -- SMS Talk 14:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Smsarmad, i appreciate your detailed message and i appreciate you helping me in the past. I would also like to assure you that my intent to oppose deletion of HYM was only to save that article from deletion and not to oppose you as an editor and i thank you for not taking the wrong way as some other people did. On a personal level, i cannot thank you enough for helping me in the past with a policy page. For future also, i want to assure you that if any edit of mine have an opposite feeling of your view point, please do not take it personal and consider it an effort to improve Wikipedia. Now i answer you point by point:
- Professor Iqbal Azeem, i am sure you watch Pakistani TV channels as well, you must have watched TV shows where he is only mentioned as Professor Iqbal Azeem, as for resources, i am working on to find them although i do not see that many out there but i want this great person on Wikipedia, i personally appreciate his literary work, the source i see online all refer to him as Professor Iqbal Azeem. I will try my best to prove that Professor Iqbal Azeem is more common. While we are here, i will like to ask you how to post Professor Iqbal Azeem's publicly available photo, i do not think it has to be my own work to post, as i see a lot of photos on Commons from public domain, they are not person's own work. When ever i go to add a photo, i have only one option which is to add my own work, i do not say anywhere to specify that this is not my own work and it is publicly available photo and i do not think there is a licence required to post.
- Noor Pur Baghan, I totally understand concerns about not having proper sources about that but i see plenty of articles with citation needed tag but information is there and not removed but this article is being treated differently and it only happened after it was mentioned in NYTimes. Now regarding Google Maps, you did not mention what content it is unreliable for? Are you saying it cannot be used at all or it can be used for existence of the place itself but not for the landmarks in it? I would like it to be used for every thing though. I understand it being user generated but hey Wikipedia is user generated as well. Regarding photos, yes i own them and i am admin of those facebook pages and moreover those photos are publicly available.
- H. A. Rose as a source, i understand that a number of editor might agree about his work but i think to me he is more reliable about having a well written book out there than number of editors who do not have any literary work, they cannot be just considered an authority over an author and his book. I am also not sure what is the basis to trust Sitush when it comes to South Asia's caste? Is there a research done by Sitush or because he has over 119,000 edits and i have only over 600 so he is considered more qualified on each and every subject. I would still like H. A. Rose's work to be considered as a reliable source for Phaphra to establish notability and keep the article from being deleted as i do not see why an author would lie about mere existence of a tribe. I have checked the noticeboard you referred to having any mention about H. A Rose's work so it's basically Sitush's opinion or a few other editors opinion who feel strongly about British Raj authors and i do not think those personal opinions should matter once it comes to Wikipedia so i would like to use him as a source in Phaphra. If i let it go here, this issue is going to arise somewhere in the future.
- Afd comments/voting, so i am not sure what did you find problematic, me voting in there at all or only some of my comments and if so which comments you think were problematic, i would definitely consider avoiding them in the future if you let me know which ones.
- Sitush's edits, first of all jumping from deletion discussion to my recent edits, i do not think it was natural, you have to have some type of bigotry deep down in your heart to do that. The attitude was some thing like "you dare to oppose me, let me teach you a lesson, let me go ahead and revert all your edits that you recently made regardless of what they are" and it was not only about Noor Pur Baghan having unsourced content, he reverted my edits on Dulla Bhatti which had a proper source and he did not realize out of his rage and prejudice that there is a source present which later on he realized and i thanked him for that. He reverted my edits in Maula Jatt ignoring WP:WTAF only because they were done by me. You see the reason here was me and my edits. Also I might not have felt that strongly about that if Sitush would not have used hateful and aggressive speech in his summary lines, it felt personal to me. Yes, you might be right what you are doing but there are ways to do it and that was not the way to do it, i don't think it was professional of him at all. This is not social media, you are doing a literary work and you should watch what you are saying and how you are saying it. Does any of Wikipedia's policies apply on admins or they only apply on newcomers. Does only newcomers get blocked by violating 3RR rules or an admin can be blocked as well?
- (talk page stalker) Hi Sajjad, I'm only going to make a brief comment and will let Smsarmad help you out with the rest. My comment is that there really isn't any such thing as a "qualified" contributor on Wikipedia. We're all on the same level and we are all supposed to use reliable sources rather than our own knowledge, so qualifications don't really come into it. However, there are various levels of experience here and that can make a difference to how people approach things. We're not supposed to bite the newbies but the Indo-Pak area is so contentious in many respects and is so lacking in decent editors that things can tend to blow up a bit more often than, say, on articles relating to butterflies or snakes or clouds.
- Listen to what Smsarmad says and try to take it on board. We all make mistakes - me included - but the key is to learn from them. Loads of people are willing to help you - again, me included - but any assistance can only be within the limits of our policies and guidelines: if they say something cannot be done then, unless you get the policy etc changed, it can't be done.
- Hey, I've been accused of being pro-Islam and pro-Hindu, pro-Pakistan and pro-India, pro-left wing politics and pro-right wing politics ... and a host of other contradictions. When someone gets accused from all sides, they're usually neutral! - Sitush (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Can u help me in editing ghulam Ahmad (engineer) apparently SMS thinks everything is incorrect, just like he did with daily darting
Ghulam Ahmad (engineer)
Can u kindly hep on this article SMS has made changes which are quite disturbing, need your help
I'm not sure if you are watching but I've replied to your !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jat clans of Multan Division. You do not need to respond but I'd imagine that you'd want to address the point that I raise. - Sitush (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Talk About Issues Resulting From A Vote (Part II)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dulla Bhatti. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sitush (talk) 12:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- You are responsible for your own actions. No-one is making you do anything but you are reverting both myself and Smsarmad . You're going to have to get a grip, Sajjad, or your time as a Wikipedian may be limited: you've been in an awful lot of spats thus far & you show little sign of learning from them. The last thing Wikipedia needs is yet more nationalistic contributors who take offence when ever something about their country or people doesn't look good. - Sitush (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- I meant that i did not want to tell you in return that you are edit warring as well, that's not me, i don't do that but when you are issuing me a warning then i am feeling like telling the same thing to you. Also i don't think Smsarmad was a revert, it was an effort to change so it makes broader sense, it would have been a revert if i would have reverted it back to Mughal Empire. I already explained myself that why i reverted you at Talk: Dulla Bhatti and User Talk: Smsarmad. I hope that's clear. I am expecting a reply at all locations so we can come to a decision regarding the edits.
- Also, please do not issue me threats such as "my time as Wikipedian would be limited" because it does not benefit me at all by remaining a Wikipedian and it does not hurt me to leave Wikipedia. You have made my life quite miserable at Wikipedia while my intention was only to contribute and it actually wouldn't hurt me at all to leave Wikipedia at this point. I also already answered to your last sentence about nationalistic contributor on both talk pages, Dulla Bhatti and Smsarmad and i deny your accusations once again. Thanks Sajjad Altaf (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Dulla Bhatti shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. SMS Talk 23:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Smsarmad I don't think I violated three revert rule contrary to what you said in your summary line and as for edit warring, no intention to edit war from my side but the other side is engaged in edit war. The difference is that i am being given warnings and the other side is not getting any warnings. That's for your so called fair practices at Wikipedia. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Talk About Issues Resulting From A Vote (Part III)
Now you are doing it on yet another article. If you revert me anywhere in the next week without first discussing the matter then I'm going to escalate this issue. You need to slow down a bit and learn. I have no doubt that you are well-intentioned but you are being disruptive also. - Sitush (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well you can do whatever you want, you can escalate it to your dad. I have always stood up in my life and I will not back down when I think i am right. What do you think, what will happen, if you escalate. The worst thing will happen that i will get blocked. It's better to lose while standing up than not speaking out against injustice. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'll give you a couple of tips about ANI. Firstly, don't go there unless you are pretty sure of your ground because things can boomerang (check that link). Secondly, the frequency of ill-judged complaints about me at ANI has caused ad admin to create a joke-y alternate recently. I can't recall ever "losing" when someone has taken me there, although that doesn't mean it won't happen in the future or (of course) that I am perfect.
- The problem with being blocked is that you cannot change anything. Are you aware of the US phrase "Better to be in the tent pissing out than outside it pissing in?" That sort of sums it up. It really isn't worth getting blocked and there really is no need for it. Wikipedia works on the basis of consensus and so the best approach is to discuss and try to achieve it: if your arguments are good then you'll almost always get what you want. There will be times when you disagree with the consensus and can do nothing about it; however, unless you are particularly wayward in your thoughts, such occasions should be few. BTW, discussion through edit summary rarely works well when things are contentious: far better to take the issue to the relevant talk page.
- I am sorry that did not come out right, the sentence about your dad. I went wayward when I found some of your remarks insulting and bullying-like. For example, "bull in the China shop", "not reverting for a week" and "did you read the bloody article" while I find your edits not right but you keep insisting they are right. "then in India"'s English is not right, it confuses people, it should be "then part of India", it would make more sense and the table should say medieval India, it would still be India but it would differentiate 16th century India from today's India. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have got frustrated with you but that is because you are not learning, not because you are/were wrong per se; indeed, you've just posted another example of not learning at the Phaphra AfD.
- "Part of India" makes it sound like a state when in fact it was then a tiny village of about 12 houses. I've already addressed your other point - there was no such country as "Medieval India", as indeed you have been keen to stress until recently. The article correctly indicates "medieval India" as a period, not a place. Perhaps these are subtleties of the language that are difficult to appreciate, especially if the reader's first language is not English, but they are important nonetheless. - Sitush (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Must we say though "then in India" since it's already noted in the table that he was born in India and reader already knows while reading the article the timeline that when he was living there the place Pindi Bhattian was in India. Using your "timeline" point against you. The table says born in India, died in India and then introduction also mentions India, we don't have to again stress that Pindi Bhattian was "then in India" again in Early Life section. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- I accept your point about Medieval India not being a country name and it being a name of the period and i would not stress on that anymore. What do you have to say about Indian Subcontinent, i think that represents rightyl the geographical location during that period. Don't take it as a Pakistan-centric opinion but what is the basis of saying that there was a country named India around that time. It is a proven concept though that Indian Subcontinent was always there and the region was referred such as. Are you sure that during Mughal Empire the region's name was India, Bharat or Hindustan? and what is the basis to say that? Sajjad Altaf (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
I have just blocked Muhammadshahzadkhan. If I were going purely by number of reverts, I could easily have blocked you as well and I really don't like blocking one party to an edit war and not the other. Only the aggressiveness of his editing and reverting persuaded me that his conduct was at greater fault. Please don't get drawn into edit wars like that in future——the first step is always to try to discuss things on the talk page; if that fails, you can go to any number of noticeboards (WP:ANI, WP:ANEW, WP:RFPP for examples) to ask for help or admin intervention. Please be aware that if the edit warring resumes after Muhammadshahzadkhan's block expires, I'll block both parties. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for not doing that though, so what is the fine line here, i thought it was three consecutive reverts, so please let me know, do you think one revert is fine and does not constitute edit warring or two are fine as well. I am having a hard time understanding it or it all depends on admin who is doing the block. He can just come in and block anyone anytime. Help me understand please, instead of talk which never comes to a resolution what are we supposed to do if we see wrong edits happening. How about if someone removes sourced information, is adding that back fine multiple times or we cannot do that as well? Sajjad Altaf (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Edit warring is what was happening there: two editors reverting each others' edits repeatedly with no end in sight instead of going to the talk page and thrashing out their differences through discussion. There is a bright-line rule, the three-revert rule, which essentially means that if any editor makes four reverts to the same article within 24 hours, they run the risk of being blocked without notice by any passing admin. If you start a discussion on the talk page and the other editor refuses to engage constructively, then you can ask for help at one of the noticeboards I linked above, and there's a very good chance they'll be sanctioned. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- It would also be a good idea to change your !Vote to support the name change. It's going to happen, remaining adamant isn't a good idea. It's basically a misunderstanding on your part. Dougweller (talk) 07:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- You seem to have a rather similar problem at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jat clans of Multan Division - you're not providing valid policy-based reasons and, as noted there, your comments do not in fact even stack up logically. I'm not suggesting that you should change to "support" but you'll most likely be ignored by the closing admin unless you can find a more coherent way to voice your opinion. - Sitush (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, guys, i took a little break from Wikipedia last night to give some time to my family, so i could not answer your messages in a timely manner. I will first answer In ictu oculi query. 2000 death was not added by me, someone else added it, i will do some research and find out the exact date of death but it is going to take some time, i have an Urdu source and most of the info i entered on that page was from that Urdu source, i was holding it back from adding it to the page until i was completely done entering all the biographical content to the page. Most sources i enter are being rejected by Sitush even if they are reliable sources for example here at Noor Pur Baghan, a lot of sources were added by Bhatti Rajpoot and although i myself refrained from editing that page, i have been monitoring it all that time. All those sources were reliable, some of them government sources, they were removed citing WP: CITEKILL and replaced with citation needed tag, my question is if you know there are sources out there and you are removing them by citing the policy WP: CITEKILL merely for aesthetic reasons then why are you asking for a citation using citation needed tag. I am kind of discouraged by this behavior and was thinking not to spend any more of my time to find sources but i found you taking a very positive approach and i see that your goal was to improve the page and i thank you for that and i will work on finding more sources for this page.
- Now, i will answer Dougweller, as i said above that i took a little break and i still need to evaluate all the changes done to the page, i also need to work and find out more sources for the page and if i found that it is right to move the page as suggested, i will surely change my vote but definitely you asked me nicely and there are people with positive approach working on the article, changing the vote is under consideration.
- Now, answering Sitush, my point of view on Jat clans of Multan Division is that it is merely a list and lists serve as an index or a glossary and they don't have to have a notability by themselves. The individual clan pages which are linked in the list are notable and list should stay as an index. Thanks and i appreciate you guys. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Talk About Issues Resulting From A Vote (Part IV)
This is the only warning you will receive about ownership of articles, which you showed at Professor Iqbal Azeem. The next time you continue to disruptively edit Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Anything to do with Pakistan seems to cause you to promote an almost-nationalist agenda and you don't seem to let it go. Various behavioural issues have been explained to you by various people - you really, really need to get a grip now. Sitush (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- It seems like you have a personal problem with me, evaluate the copy of Professor Iqbal Azeem before yesterday's move request, that was a draft copy written by me, it has a mention of India ten times in it. To me it looks like you are promoting a nationalist agenda and you don't like a mention of Pakistan in articles. The reference provided clearly states that he is a poet from Pakistan. What else you want? You did not get a grip in so many years and you are telling me to get a grip who just started yesterday.
- Do something constructive man, your behavior have been very destructive. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)