User talk:SheriffIsInTown

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"THE WATCH"

The most important aspect of delivering justice is to deliver the offenders to the justices, so they may defend themselves.

A quote by Sheriff ☎ 911

To succeed and endure on Wikipedia, one must don a rhino 🦏 skin.

Another quote by Sheriff ☎ 911

It is not sufficient that I succeed; all others must fail.

Temüjin describing culture at Wikipedia
Medals of Honor
This user was honored with a ban on the name of Prophet Muhammad (صلی الله علیہ و آلہ و سلم).
This user was blocked on Pakistan Independence Day.
It would be criminal negligence not to offer you this tasty cupcake for one of the most original ideas for user pages I have come across. Please enjoy! Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 19:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, i appreciate the gesture. Sheriff (report) 19:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Pakistan Barnstar of National Merit
Awarded to you for your tireless efforts and industrious contributions especially to Pakistan-related articles. Thank you and keep up the good work! Faizan (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Faizan, its a surprise for me as i am not sure if i have done anything commendable yet but i will accept it wholeheartedly. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Barnstar of Diligence
I have watched your recent SPIs and your level of scrutiny in amazement which has lived upto your username, with the most recent one being against the prolific sockmaster, Lagoo Sab. Magog was right that admins and even the Arbitrators generally don't want to get involved with a subject with a 10-foot pole... your persistence in tracking down dishonest sockpuppets is much appreciated. I hope you can continue to contribute to wikipedia in the long term by keeping calm and staying content focused when it comes to disputes. lTopGunl (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TopGun: Thank you, all the pleasure is mine but I think all the credit goes to Magog the Ogre for daring to do what nobody else attempted to do. Honestly, I was getting under the impression that maybe admins are under threat or kept hostage by this user. The user is in fact quite a bully and I have seen him bullying admins at ANI so not sure that has anything to do with this or not but again kudos to Magog for doing the right thing and I dedicate this barnstar to him! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Barnstar of Diligence
Impressive work with Sockpuppet investigation. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Vinegarymass911: Thank you! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Barnstar of Good Humor
Hahaha your signature really made me laugh. LOOOOOL --> 911. Keep it up. VitalPower talk 22:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@VitalPower: Thank you, we all try our best! 😀 Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Technical Barnstar
On constituency wide information update. Great man . Allah bless you. Jawadmdr (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jawadmdr: Ameen and Thank you, just trying my best! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well deserved. Keep up your good work! --Saqib (talk) 08:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Original Barnstar
I thought its long due, you deserve this for all the hard-work you put to improve Pakistani articles. Thanks for your contributions. Störm (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Störm: Damn, I was thinking the same thing about you after seeing your recent edits on Imran Khan but you beat me to it, you are doing a great job yourself, keep it up! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Police Barnstar
For protecting Wikipedia from POV-pushers and for your vigilance in keeping pages pertaining to Pakistani politics vandalism free. Saqib (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib: Seriously, why someone awards me a barnstar exactly when I am thinking doing the same to them, you guys keep beating me on that front.
Thank you though, it means a lot to me at the time when I was thinking that I might be overdoing it and needs to slow down! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Corrections Department[edit]

If you happen to come by to file a police report, please leave it in its own drawer in my desk and I will attend to it when I come back from patrol.

Summons[edit]

rollback[edit]

Hi SheriffIsInTown. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate it. Sheriff (report) 19:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you![edit]

Hi ! I want to be your friend. Ciphers00 (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ciphers00:Thank you, i am not sure, how to properly respond except to thank you for this gesture. :) Sheriff (report) 16:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar?[edit]

You gave a barnstar to User:WikiBulova for List of magazines in Karachi. Actually, this article was in its entirety copied and pasted by WikiBUlova from List of magazines in Pakistan... Rescinding the barnstar? Regards, kashmiri TALK 17:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

kashmiri: Please read the message in the barnstar carefully, it was not for List of magazines in Pakistan but rather it was for Sindh, i found his work impressive on that article for a new editor but then i have been having second thoughts as well. At this point, i am sticking to my decision to give him a barnstar because i think every new editor have a room for improvement but who doesn't, even most experienced editors have room for improvement. He needs to work on collecting the sources before adding the information. Sheriff (report) 17:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, your edit summary[1] only mentions that specific article, so maybe I jumped to conclusion too rapidly. Anyhow, just found it slightly curious to see a barnstar on the profile of such a new editor, one with a number of controversial edits. Regards, kashmiri TALK 17:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That barnstar is for new editors as it is named The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar. Sheriff (report) 17:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A 9 months old account with 1600+ edits and you call them a "new editor"? kashmiri TALK 19:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was my judgement when I awarded him that barnstar. Wikipedia is a broad system with a wide range of policies. It takes a lot of time and learning curve to understand and learn them. Everyone is not a fast learner. We should be patient with new editors as they learn and grow themselves instead of harassing them for every mistake they make. That is my personal view, yours could be different. I still consider myself a new editor although I have more than 2,300 edits. I think anyone with less than 2,000 edits should be considered a new editor. You might want to look back at your time when you started editing and then judge others. Sheriff (report) 21:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer[edit]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Thank you Sheriff (report) 01:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetrators turned victims[edit]

Mohammad Ashraf Ghani[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Krzyhorse22. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Krzyhorse22: If you claim that all that information is verifiable through multiple sources in the article then please add those sources to the pertinent information. You know that sources can be added multiple times in an article. Please do not revert me without adding the sources. Sheriff (report) 02:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh[edit]

Hi. I'd appreciate it if you would raise any questions beforehand. The oldest archaeologically excavated cities in Bangladesh are from the first millennium BCE, this is not a "rather exceptional claim", its very much a matter of fact. Cheers,--Akbar the Great (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the names of cities in your summary line and I will do some research to find out where the claim in the article stands.
That is how we improve the article, if a source is not there, we ask for one, either you provide one or remove unsourced information and in the end, article gets improved. Thanks for your note. Sheriff (report) 02:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of personal attack[edit]

Hey Sheriff, it is not a personal attack, it’s his POV. He expressed an opinion, which I am not supporting or denying. If you disagree feel free to post below it or ask him to remove it but don't remove it yourself. From the policy:"In the event of rudeness or incivility on the part of another editor, it may be appropriate to discuss the offending words with that editor, and to request that editor to change that specific wording. Some care is necessary, however, so as not to further inflame the situation. It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment. Exceptions include to remove obvious trolling or vandalism, or if the comment is on your own user talk page. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor." It is not derogatory. Uncivil maybe but definitely not derogatory. Have a good day. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Vinegarymass911, It's no use discussing with him, if i discuss with him, he further attacks me and insults me so discussing with him is like inviting more incivility towards you. You check out below, how many discussions has taken place between us, you will see baseless accusations from him in each conversation:
1. Diff
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Shams (East Pakistan)
(There were more but i am not including those, don't have time to assemble all of those)
Template:RPA is for these type of situations when the offending editor is not willing to address the issue in a polite and civil manner. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I thought it was unacceptable. Calling some one a POV-pusher in the midst of a heated discussion is one thing, but going to a public notice board and finger pointing at some one is quite extreme. I think Sheriff is within his rights to object to it or to take it to the admins. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vinegarymass911 has a history of questionable edits. But that's something which can be touched later. Kautilya, I expected better from an admin. My post on the WPB talkpage came only after weeks of dealing with Sheriff's continuous removals. Its like he has a dedicated agenda. The way you feel is unfortunate.--Akbar the Great (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Akbar the Great: May almighty help you and give you peace! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The almighty has been very kind to me and has given me peace! As well as the courage to stand up to distortionists like yourself.--Akbar the Great (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You will find me equally courageous enough to verify your distortions as well. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 05:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Akbar the Great: Since, you accused me again of having an agenda. I will like to answer you as to how I got pulled into Bangladesh articles and I will like to ping Kautilya3 and Vinegarymass911 into this since you mentioned them in one of your previous messages and they are entitled to see your good faith towards them as well. Now, let me tell you, how I got pulled into Bangladesh articles. Few months back, I was reading up on something and I saw Bangladesh's population figures, when I checked Bangladesh article, I found them outdated so I updated them and since then Bangladesh was in my watchlist. Few weeks ago when I saw your extensive shifting of text on that page, I started evaluating your edits and a few things struck out so I started checking the sources and found some of stuff not according to the sources so I removed it but you reverted and an edit war ensued. In that questionable text there were links to Al-Badr and Al-Shams, I clicked on Al-Badr, it took me to Al-Badr in Mecca, I clicked on Al-Shams and it took me to a page filled with citation needed tags and only two inaccessible Bengali language sources. Not knowing anything about these entities before, it was natural for me to take it to AFD and by the way that was my first AFD ever. You accused me of political motivation on that AFD and said that you are accusing me because of my userboxes, since I assumed that the page will be kept, I was not checking that discussion regularly so I did not notice your last message but when I checked the discussion after it was closed, I really felt insulted by your message so I replied you here instead since it was kind of related to that topic but instead of taking your words back, your harsh comments towards me continued. How I got to Mukti Bahini? Well, Al-Shams was in my watchlist since AFD and I was curious to verify the sources. There was a mention of rape by Pakistan Army and Al-Shams so I checked the source. The source mentioned Mukti Bahini as well so I went to Mukti Bahini and found it in WP:FANPAGE state and that text not being there. That's how I got into Bangladesh articles, I had no agenda whatsoever, I can swear by anything. I have been wanting to check Bangladesh Liberation War for so many days now but I am afraid for your allegations, my friend. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 06:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's all wonderful, but you still continue to evade the serious content disputes that have arisen in several talk pages. I have dealt with you for three weeks. My dispute with you was not about population figures, but your removal of all mention of 1971 atrocities from the Bangladesh page (except, absurdly, those targeting Hindus). The dispute was not about Al Badr or Al Shams. It was about how you insist on contradicting sources on A K Fazlul Huq and Maulana Bhashani. It was about how you kept removing Bangladesh's role in UN peacekeeping, in spite of sources. You have accused such content of being "anti-Pakistan", "promoting Bangladesh", "against the Pakistani leadership"and other highly ridiculous charges.
My edits are fully supported by reliable sources. It's there for everyone to see.
It's also clear to everyone that your talk page is nothing but a hate festival on me.
And @Kautilya3: you have been nothing but a toothless administrator. Hope you grow some teeth from real life!

--Akbar the Great (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Kautilya3 for mistaking you as an administrator. But you posting hostile personal commentary one someone else's good faith talk page post is also extreme. How unfortunate that even Wikipedia has to endure the bimbo Nawaz-Modi brotherhood. And yes I am fed up of Sheriff removing content on false grounds.--Akbar the Great (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, stop claiming false grounds and address them on the proper talk pages and in proper context without accusing anyone and without straying off the topic and in a civil manner. I didn't evade any content dispute rather I was the one to stop the war and start a talk thread most of the time. I have dealt with you for three weeks as well. Whatever I removed was unsourced at the time of removal or was not supported by sources. Your accusations do not mean anything to me anymore because you have been proven a habitual accuser after accusing Vinegarymass911 and Kautilya3. Bunching together conflicts and edit disputes from different pages and claiming that your position was right and mine was wrong without relative context does not have any value. The edit history is there on those pages with my summary descriptions and yours as well. Talk threads are there as well. I challenged your edits on valid policy grounds and mentioned the reasons in summary lines or on talk pages. I am not sure why you are mentioning the settled matters here, when I challenged Bangladesh's role at UN, it was unsourced, you sourced it and I accepted it. Its called settled matter and it does not warrant mentioning. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 06:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Akbar the GreatKautilya3Sheriff | ☎ 911 Everyone lets put an end to this. Things were said, accusations made, edits reverted and feelings hurt. Lets put it in the past and look forward to cooperation in the future. All of these does not benefit Wikipedia or anyone for that matter. Forgive and Forget. We are free to edit any article we want as long as it adheres to policy. We are all trying to improve Wikipedia. No use crying over spilled milk, whats done is done. To a fresh start. Cheers. PS we could have spent this energy trying to find what happened to Jon Snow. We Must Know-Vinegarymass911 (talk) 06:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Vinegarymass911: I am only at the third episode of Season 2 so I definitely do not know what happened to him. I will send a party after him. :) Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Akbar the Great: pray tell what issues you have with my editing and if you are going to mention me please tag me. I am open to criticism. I have made mistakes I will admit that, but I learn from experience and my mistakes.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 06:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinegarymass911: The only issue i can think of is that you are working on a Bangladesh article but you did not obtain prior authorization from Akbar to do that. You should have asked him if you are allowed to do that. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Akbar the Great: Please do not address Kautilya3 or anyother editor from my talk page anymore, they have their own talk pages, you can address them there or address them from your own.

Coming back 5 days after you left the original message and making it nastier than it was before doesn't make any sense. It’s like you are looking to pick fights. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 05:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your ping[edit]

Hello Sheriff,

I saw you pinged me on that new SPI case of Lagoo sab. Thanks. Unfortunately however, I don't really have the time atm (nor the will) to do another dig or, as you asked, to make an in-depth evaluation of the material you posted. To be honest, I feel like its gonna be another attempt in vain, given that the claims are never really taken serious by the admins, allowing him to dodge the bullet over and over. Nor were any concerns taken any serious in the first place. I don't know what more "striking evidence" they'd expect us to post after that last SPI case I filed against him, seriously. Oh well.

Anyway, I just checked some of your evidence briefly. It looks pretty alright. Btw, feel free to take a look at the latter part of the case I filed some time ago. Perhaps there are some diffs that you could use as well. I'm pretty sure the admins were already WP:TL;DR, by that time so they probably didn't even see it (WP:GF assumed).

For example these;

As well as these, for example;

Amongst others. If I happen to have some spare time (and the will), I'll definetely try to leave a comment. Bests and take care - LouisAragon (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case request[edit]

Hi, SheriffIsInTown. I noticed you recently filed an arbitration case request. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I was appointed to help manage arbitration pages on behalf of the Committee. (I'm also a clerk over at SPI, but that has no importance here; if you have concerns about my impartiality, please let me know.) It may be a good idea to clarify your statement; I was unable to make sense of your case request; are you requesting ArbCom overturn Bbb23's findings and block Krzyhorse22? In that case, please list (at a bare minimum) those two users, as well as Magog the Ogre (who I see you feel is impartial enough that they can't act as a blocking admin), as parties, and formally notify them of the arbitration case. Thanks. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@L235: I will do that in a little bit. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Sheriff is going steady ;-)[edit]

Hey Sheriff, well done with these latest SPI's :-) Btw, I just checked, it seems as if this sock in question, who is now blocked, made quite a few edits. Any specific plans and/or ideas regarding what to do with that? - LouisAragon (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LouisAragon: I will analyze his edits when I had free time. In the meantime, anyone is welcome to take an action on his edits as they see fit. I expect most of them to be his POV. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah[edit]

Definetely bearing some resemblance to him. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prophet ﷺ[edit]

Yes we all know that the last Prophet sallahahi alahi was sallam was not the founder of Islam. But I have seen amongst Non-Muslim people that they harbour a belief that he was so. As the information is well sourced in the article, it is diffucult to remove. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 09:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright[edit]

Copyright problem icon Your addition to Firdous Jamal has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jezebel's Ponyo Can it be attributed to the source? Can we say that the image is copyrighted to so and so or point to the website, i have seen many images on Wikipedia for which licensing information says that the image is copied from the following website! For example, the infobox image at Jeetendra. Sheriff | report | 21:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The image must be free (in the public domain) or appropriately licensed. Images of living persons found on various websites almost never meet the criteria required and such images cannot be claimed under fair use. The Jeetendra image is from bollywoodhungama.com, one of the exceedingly rare websites that do release a selection of their images under a compatible license.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jezebel's Ponyo: How about if I obtain an express permission from the actor? What should the text say from him? Can he just simply say "you are allowed to post it"? Would it be good enough? I will contact him via email to obtain his approval. Sheriff | report | 23:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects: "If you're interested in donating photographs to illustrate your article...you can email photosubmission@wikimedia.org . Please include the photograph in question, along with a statement that you own the copyright on it, and an agreement to release it under a free license. Our recommended license is the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. If you don't own the copyright, please ask the photographer or copyright owner to send in a release instead. The "declaration of consent" may be used if desired."--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can i ask him to email me or he must email to photosubmission@wikimedia.org? Sheriff | report | 23:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright holder needs to confirm the release.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Jezebel's Ponyo, what do you think about screen captures? What if we do not save the actual image but take a screen shot? For example, TechSmith Jing lets you take screen captures and crop them however you want. Let me know about screen captures of human subjects and non-human subjects especially screen captures of data charts or maps? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Screen captures cannot be used to depict living persons. The image has to either be in the public domain, or the appropriate permissions provided by the copyright holder.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ponyo: So does that mean screen captures of non-human subjects especially screen captures of data charts or maps are okay?
Fair use with regard to charts and maps are definitely not my specialty. Perhaps you could ask at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content? As a side note, your ping didn't work as you didn't sign your post.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance that I should have heeded[edit]

Advices[edit]

Assalamualikum Wrahmatullah Brother. Keya hal hay. I hope fine. I'd like to give just some advice. It will be much better if you remove some of your infoboxes, as you might be in trouble. I had an account and was good contribitor, but then blocked all of my boxes, which were similar to yours have been removed. Admins had a negative thought on me. This is just an advice. Hope that you'll consider this. Fiamanillah. Allah knows best.--78.149.115.204 (talk) 12:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been getting ideas to create some of my userboxes and templates from pages of a few other users and have noticed one of those users were blocked recently, maybe it's you but I am not afraid of anything and would keep portraying myself as I am. I wish there was some leniency on Wikipedia towards good contributers vs. people who just come to vandalize. Sheriff | report | 16:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm genuinely interested - what userboxes do you believe will get someone blocked? I've been an admin for 7-8 years now, and I've never once blocked someone over an infobox. I mean - I suppose yes, I could imagine infoboxes on a userpage that would get someone banned (something like 'this user believes that all people that have a favorite number of 7 are subhuman' or something similar, I guess). Nothing on your userpage as it is right now jumps out at me as inflammatory or otherwise innapropriate? SQLQuery me! 09:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SQL: What I think the original poster was referring was that some admins or other editors on Wikipedia might have islamophobic views or are anti-Pakistan POV and what I understood that he/she was suggesting was that because of that they can hound you until you can get blocked for valid policy reasons may be but you come under extra scrutiny than most other editors would and personally I feel like a lot of people I interacted with on Wikipedia are already looking for an excuse to block me because my opinions differ from them on most of the issues. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were right, people already started accusing me because of my userboxes, it's an easy escape for people to try to win an argument. "oh, he has this userbox on his user page". Akbar the Great, you don't have any right to accuse me all the time because of my userboxes like you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Shams (East Pakistan) (I did not see that before), base your argument on policies of Wikipedia instead of what people's personal preferences are. Almost, every Wikipedia editor who lives in a democratic country supports one or another political party and almost every editor on Wikipedia is a citizen of one country or another, this should not have any bearing on our editing. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you people, you and that IP, trying to promote some sinister agenda here? Because the IP just gave you very bad advice.
Don't imagine things. When did I ever say "oh, he has this userbox on his user page"? I pointed at your userbox only once in that AfD, to illustrate your ridiculous nomination which came after the government you support denied any atrocities in 1971. I personally found that pretty outrageous.--Akbar the Great (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Akbar the Great: Oh, stop with your non-sense accusations already. You are saying that the IP gave me a bad advice to remove userboxes while you made his advice correct by accusing me of political motivation for an AFD because you saw a userbox on my user page which says that I support the political party which is currently in power in Pakistan. The text "oh, he has this userbox on his user page"? was an example of what people like you resort to and it was an essence of what you said on that AFD debate. It was not a ridiculous nomination as I already explained in AFD debate that the page was filled with "citation needed" tags since July 2014 and they must have been around 20. I see people have been adding sources in result of that nomination, I didn't check the page yet but I hope that it is significantly improved than what it was before my nomination. Moreover, I was not aware of Pakistan Government's policy of "genocide denial" which you pointed out, it seems like you are keeping a better tab on Pakistan Government than most Pakistanis are doing.
Again, I will suggest that you stop accusing people and base your arguments on Wikipedia policies like for example I will not accuse you of working for Bangladesh consulate in New Zealand and furthering the agenda of Bangladesh government of Anti-Pakistan POV pushing because that would be totally ridiculous and I have no proof of that and you have no userboxes at your user page on which I can base my accusations although you only work on Bangladesh pages and most of your edits are to promote Bangladesh and accuse Pakistan but since you have no userboxes thus I cannot accuse you of political motivation and POV pushing.
Moreover, I have been seeing your edits since they were less than 200 and your edits and understanding of Wikipedia policies were more sophisticated than me while I had more than 2,000 edits and you do not use summary lines. Based on that it will be preposterous to blame you of being a sockpuppet of a previously blocked user or that you are trying to avoid detection by not using the summary lines. Same way, you should avoid baseless allegations and stick to policy matters.
I will also encourage you to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Single-purpose account if you are not already because your account qualifies the description as it is restricted to Bangladesh articles and focused on promotion of that country while promoting anti-Pakistan POV on those articles. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is BS. You're digging head over heels to personally attack me just because you can't argue based on facts and sources? I have more than 1500 edits. Why do you lie so much and put up a religious icon? What in God's name is your problem? I've edited plenty of stuff, so mine isn't a single purpose account. I edited Bangladesh because there was a definite need for improvement. I didn't know that any enhancement of Bangladesh's coverage gets to some of you Pakistani nationalists so much. My content hasn't been disputed, except by you on flimsy grounds.

I dedicated an entire section on human rights and corruption under the Bangladesh Government, I can't imagine how they would be fond of me.

I have a strong feeling that you're a sockpuppet, or certainly acting at the behest of banned users.

I suggest you stop making personal attacks all the time, stop acting like a partisan editor, stop beating around the bush and start talking to the point. I hope Wikipedia doesn't end up getting hijacked by your lot.--Akbar the Great (talk) 02:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Akbar the Great: I didn't accuse you of anything but you are accusing me over and over again and forgetting that you need to be WP:CIVIL when you are talking to others. You are the one who resorts to personal attacks and you have done so over and over again, you have done so at that AFD, that was personal attack and you have done so over and over again here as well and at Talk:Bangladesh so I suggest you stop that, please. All I have done to hear this crap from you is to challenge your edits on policy grounds at Bangladesh and A. K. Fazlul Huq. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What did I ever accuse you off? Show me proof. The crap you're throwing at me is clearly visible above. In that AfD, I said you were guilty of being politically motivated. I still stand by that. Your unsuccessful nomination came days after the widely reported genocidal denial statement of Pakistan. I don't keep a track of your government. I had to read about it in the front page of my morning paper in Bangladesh. It was also reported around the world, 1, 2, 3 4, 5.
On Sher-e-Bangla, you just don't get it. You also have no idea of who I am. I'll try sorting that out later.--Akbar the Great (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Akbar the Great: To begin, we start with your accusation at AFD of political motivation. What you are implying there is that I knew about "genocidal denial of Pakistan" and that was my motivation to take that page to afd. Let's start with that, I wait for your proof about me knowing about "genocidal denial of Pakistan" and that being the reason.
Now whether it was successful or unsuccessful, I accept the outcome of that AFD and I have no doubt that I followed the proper procedures regarding that. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 05:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What's left to prove there? You acted in the same context as the Pakistani Government. Anyways I'm done here.--Akbar the Great (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Akbar the Great: So, that's your proof that any Pakistani who will challenge an unsourced WP Bangladesh article, you will blame him for association with Pakistani government? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article was sourced and met general notability guidelines. You tried to delete the Wikipedia article on the Al Shams brigade for heaven's sake, a widely reported militia force of 1971. I'm sorry you're so blinded to the right side of history by whatever POV you have.--Akbar the Great (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Akbar the Great: WP:AFD is the process which is used to delete the article and no article gets deleted without consensus, it's a normal deletion process at Wikipedia, any editor can feel that an article meets the criteria for deletion and put it up for that. I felt that, that article met that criteria and submitted it for the process, people thought it does not meet the criteria for deletion and the result was "keep". You have no need to be upset about that and call people POV pushers and blame them for political motivation. You should have trust in policies of Wikipedia and follow them. Getting upset about normal processes of Wikipedia shows that you harbor strong political affiliations and your motives are not to build an encyclopedia but rather they are to further a specific political agenda. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're clearly talking about yourself aren't you. You're the only one here with strong political affiliations and political prejudices.--Akbar the Great (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Akbar the Great: And that's only because I have a userbox on my page which says I am from Pakistan and I prefer to support PML (N) out of all other political parties? You have failed to enlighten me with a valid reason except your empty blames which started when I challenged some of your sourceless edits on Bangladesh, a page which you are owning. Let me tell you boy, this is Wikipedia and not Bangladesh, people from all sorts of backgrounds have a right to work on any article that they want to work on, so whether you welcome me or not, I will keep working on it. Your empty blames cannot stop me. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you keep removing and editing my comments. Please watch your language. I don't have to be a supporter of Bangladesh's government to defend accurate history. But unfortunately, your edits have shown a strong bias towards the attitude of the current Pakistani government, which is the first in history to adopt genocide denial as a policy. Given your justifiably democratic support for this pathetic regime, I have every right to challenge your revisionist distortions.--Akbar the Great (talk) 13:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Akbar the Great: Dude, I only removed those messages in which you personally attacked me, even some of those I did not remove. Please stop restoring them, I have every right to remove them. Once you will start watching your language and learn to talk in civil manner, there will be no need for anyone to remove your comments. Why don't you understand the same thing that I don't have to be a supporter of Pakistan government to check and verify the content in any article including Wikipedia: WikiProject Bangladesh articles. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malik and Zehri[edit]

I seem to have gotten ahead of reality. Still, it seems like a done deal. I assume it will be confirmed in the next few days at which point I will want to re-update the pages... unless I am wrong, and we get a surprise challenge. Curro2 (talk) 01:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Curro2: Sure thing, just revert me when change actually happens, there is a process of election which must take place. Sorry for reverting you. I know how upsetting it is when you assemble everything and someone just reverts you in one click. Sheriff | report | 02:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No no no you are right. I jumped the gun. Curro2 (talk) 05:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MIT[edit]

You should have received an email from me with a link to a registration form - could you please either complete the form or email me if you did not receive it? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for OUP. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ping. Please respond in the next week if you are still interested in receiving access. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I just submitted the form for MIT, I hope, I still have a chance to get access! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Submitted for OUP as well! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, SheriffIsInTown![edit]

Happy New Year!

SheriffIsInTown,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Kautilya3 (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
@Kautilya3: Thank you and same to you, it was very thoughtful of you. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 05:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can I take this opportunity to invite you to join WP:INDOPAK? It seems that we are under-represented by Pakistan at the moment. Hopefully, we make progress on some new initiatives in the new year. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad[edit]

The Muhammad article is under discretionary sanctions and you have been notified of those sanctions[2]. Edits like this one are very much against an established consensus and are a violation of our neutral point of view policy.

I am imposing a 1 month topic ban against you regarding all pages related to Muhammad broadly construed. Topic bans are explained here. I am keeping this ban short because I hope that you can edit in a neutral fashion in the area in the future. If after this ban expires there are further issues with neutrality in that area the discretionary sanctions allow topic bans up to 1 year in length.

Information about discretionary sanctions can be found here: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions. HighInBC 20:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: It seems like you were very quick to issue a ban against me without even hearing me out and the reason you gave was "[3]. Edits like this one are very much against an established consensus and are a violation of our neutral point of view policy." but you did not explain what was wrong with that edit, it was properly sourced and source almost exactly say what I put in the article. You said it was "against consensus and neutral point of view" but I totally do not understand how? There are almost over 50 edits on that page between my edit series of today and the last time. Nobody discusses and obtains consensus before editing that page then why editors with pro-Islamic views are being demanded of that. It's like saying "either ban yourself from editing or we will ban you". I am really disappointed by this. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the honorific (PBUH) has been discussed to ad infinitum, there is even a notice every time you edit linking to: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Islam-related_articles#Islamic_honorifics. Topics under discretionary sanctions have a long history of disruptive editing and are held to a far higher standard of conduct. It is up to you to understand our neutrality policy. If you don't see how adding "peace be upon him" after his name is an inappropriate tone for an encyclopedia then you may not possess the neutrality required to edit on this topic.
I am not saying "ban yourself or I will", I sincerely hope that after this short ban expires that you will be able to contribute to the topic in a neutral fashion. Some people have accused you of being a single purpose account, you could use this time to show them they are wrong and that you are here to contribute to the encyclopedia as a whole. HighInBC 21:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am going out to a job right now, but I will be back in the evening if you want to discuss this further. HighInBC 21:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, HighInBC, i have been holding off this discussion because I did not review the RFC which discusses these discretionary sanctions because previously I started reading the one on Pakistan-India-Afghanistan and I still couldn't finish it. RFC's are just too long to read but I do plan to read and understand them. As for warnings while doing edits, they do not appear when you do edits from a mobile device but anyway without reviewing the RFC, I still think that adding the honorific like I did cannot call for a ban, since I have the page in my watchlist and I have seen that people are still discussing the matter. Allow me to repeat and this is my point of view as well that as a Muslim editor, it's my obligation to add honorific like I did otherwise whatever was added was sourced and I did not evade any policy while doing so. If it was just the matter of honorific, there were other ways to deal with the issue than a right away ban. I think the editor who started screaming at the talk page overreacted which made you to overreact and rush to ban. You also said people claimed that my account is an SPA, that's that one editor which claimed that but if you look at my edit history and all the pages I have edited are listed at my user page, you will find out that I edit on wide variety of subjects. There was a working consensus going on, on that page, I did adjust my edits after Jeppiz objected to those. I think we should not ban people in haste.
I was waiting to review the RFC before appealing you to reconsider the ban but then I thought by the time I will review the RFC, month will already be over and thinking that I dropped that idea but seeing the conversation developing on that page, I thought I should contact you and request you to reconsider if you think you might have overreacted or acted in a haste. Thank you Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that you have said that it is your obligation to add the honorific. It is a requirement that Wikipedia users edit in a neutral fashion. I respect that your beliefs may obligate you to add the honorific, however it is still not compatible with the goals of Wikipedia. The issue of the honorific has been discussed for about a decade now and the consensus has consistently been against it.

You mentioned other ways to deal with your obligation regarding the honorific, I would love to hear them. If I can be made confident that your edits in the area will be neutral and not unduly influenced by your personal beliefs I can lift the ban. HighInBC 03:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SheriffIsInTown: I'm Muslim too. Have you seen this?VR talk 22:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

your edits in mohenjo-daro[edit]

Let me suggest politely that you not use nonsensical third rate sources. All sources are not equal on Wikipedia. Please tell on the Mohenjo-daro talk page why that source is reliable. what is its citation index? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - Fowler has reverted your edits a second time. [4] Curro2 (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Curro2: Not sure, what to do man! I guess, I am going to retire, I have had enough. People have setup their own domains here and they try to push away anybody who tries to improve articles which they think they own. There is someone owning Bangladesh articles and if you go and try to improve any article under that project, they will revert you just because you are Pakistani. Now, here its the case of laziness as well, undo is easy, just one click and who cares if the other person have spent hours researching the material. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 09:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relax buddy! We learn from every dispute situation and get better as editors. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
:) Please don't leave Wikipedia on my account! And I thought you were a Hindu nationalist! The problem is the book you are using, which it turns out is not Hindu nationalist, but still is a somewhat non-mainstream work which uses a mostly religious/mythological text, the Rig Veda, to deduce things that properly belong to the domain of archaeology. The book itself says, "This is the first investigation of its kind and the conclusions of the study are no less original. Besides establishing the rationality of the Rgvedic narratives, it shows the events and their agents to be historical in the light of available archaeological material." In other words, this is not exactly a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. It is the first I have heard that Mohenjo-daro is a Bengali version of a Sindhi word. It is true that one of the early excavators of Mohenjo-daro, Rakhaldas Bannerjee, was Bengali, but it is very unlikely that he would have changed the name to a Bengali name, given that he was working for the British directed Archaeological Survey of (British) India. I encourage you to find better references for the article, but this doesn't seem to be one. No hurt feelings, I hope, and my apologies. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS The reason why I mentioned "Hindu nationalist," is that there is a revisionist trend among some Hindu nationalist Indian historians and archaeologists, who are claiming, on scant evidence, that the Indus civilization was Vedic, that all its artifacts, culture, administrative and political systems are of Vedic Hindu origin, although, as I've said above, your source probably is not saying this. These same very people have been claiming that they've found a new Indus site, and they have found thousands, wherever their foot hits a stone anywhere in India. They seem to be upset that the Indus civilization is mostly in Pakistan. (I'm exaggerating a little, but it is one thing one has to watch out for in all IVC related pages.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: I have heard on a TV channel, a Pakistani presenter saying that the official name "Mohenjo-daro means "Heart pleasing city" while the original name "Moenjo-daro" meant "Mountain of the dead" so i thought let's do some research on that since i had seen some bickering on Mohenjo-daro in the past about the meaning of the name or what spelling should be used. So those two sources were the result of that research. Now i have no idea, who is Hindu nationalist when it comes to the authors as both of them have Hindu names but having a Hindu name does not make someone Hindu nationalist, the book names have words "Rigveda" in them so the author might have written the book from Hinduism perspective but the text that i included in the article does not talk about Hinduism or Hindu nationalism, it merely talks about the meaning of the name which does not hint anywhere about it being from Hinduism perspective. I am for giving the coverage to every perspective and leave to the reader to come to the conclusion. If one writer says that the word means "Mound of the dead" or "The hill of the corpses", the other says "The place with doors" or "The place of doors", we should mention all of them, that's what encyclopedia is about. Why should we favor one meaning over the other. I mean i would be careful if an author is a Hindu nationalist and says "Mohenjo-daro" means "A place with Hindu temples", that would be Hindu nationalism (i might include that one as well just to give greater coverage to the subject though). Here is another one,[1] this one says it means "Mound of the dead", we should source that meaning as well.
And i don't know anything about citation index or how to check it? It would be helpful if you can give me a link to some tool or page describing that. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ L. K. Singh (1 February 2008). Indian Cultural Heritage Perspective For Tourism. Gyan Publishing House. p. 14. ISBN 8182054753.

Here are some reliable IVC sources. If you stick to them, you can't go wrong. You could add them as bibliography to the Mohenjo-daro pge:

best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on finding a good source. I think, though, you might have the ISBN of the E-book (which doesn't have page numbers). Also, it is usually more accurate to give the chapter title and author of the chapter in the author, as Bates et al have only edited the book. If you use the following: Fukao, Junichi (2015), "Cities in India: An archaeological perspective", in Crispin Bates, Minoru Mio (eds) (ed.), Cities in South Asia, Routledge, p. 18, ISBN 978-1-317-56513-0 {{citation}}: |editor= has generic name (help), it will give the reader the full information, and, by clicking the book title, will take the reader straight to page 18, where he or she can check for themselves. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: Thanks for your help, I will try to get better on this. :) How did you find the author name? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome. The author's name is right under the chapter title on page 17. (If you are not in the US or Canada, you might not be able to see this.  :) ). Google books allows different degrees of access in different country locations. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine for u![edit]

Sunshine!
Hello SheriffIsInTown! Bhootrina (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Bhootrina (talk) 06:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bhootrina: Not sure, what did I do to get this but thanks for spreading the love! By the way, big cats are my favorite animals too, i think they are the most beautiful mammals on the planet. I like Cheetah the most, it's such a baby-faced animal, very cute. I might add some of those userboxes on my page as well. :) Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additions to page: Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War[edit]

I made some well-sourced additions to the page Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War and @MBlaze Lightning removed them and asked me to discuss on Talk page. I raised all my points on the Talk page but he has not responded on Talk despite asking me to and still insists on not letting my additions through.

You can access the Talk page for that article here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rape_during_the_Bangladesh_Liberation_War

I would like you to review my additions and sources and see if you have an issue with it.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TalhaZubairButt: According to WP:CANVASS, I cannot intervene in your favor on that page since I have not made an edit on that page before. If that was not a hindrance I would have loved to do so and I have been thinking to look at that page for long now. I plan to look at it in future but will make my own decision as to when.
I completely understand your frustration about the behavior of some Indian editors, it seems like they are bent on making Wikipedia, a political battleground which is against the essence of building a free encyclopedia and it has been like that for long so someone like you or like myself comes and challenges their authority, they start throwing fits. So, in this case its completely unfair for that editor not to allow your edits and on top of that, not to engage in a discussion. You can reinstate your edit after waiting a reasonable time for him to engage in discussion but if he continues this behavior then you will have to explore other venues. You can serve him WP:3RR if he is to breach that rule or maybe report him to WP:ANI/edit-warring. You can file a case at WP:3O so a third unrelated editor can join in. If you are not satisfied with the result of 3O, you can go to WP:DRN, an informal mediation forum, WP:MEDCOM, a formal mediation forum, next step WP:RFC and finally you can appeal to ARBCOM and I am willing to help you regarding these procedures by staying on the sidelines and not engaging in actual dispute.
There is one way for me to engage in the actual content dispute and that is that we ask MBlaze Lightning to invite one editor of his choice to the dispute, that way you will have an editor of your choice and he would have an editor of his choice.
Finally, my advice to you is that familiarise yourself with policies and do not get blocked. You are doing a very good job. Keep up the good work. I see your content is sourced and balanced but because of the fighty behavior of Wikipedia, you will encounter opposition and last thing we want is to lose a good editor like yourself so keep your cool and calm, don't express your personal feelings towards hot political disputes even if your opponents do and don't get yourself blocked.
Let me know if you want me to ask the other editor to get another editor of his choice then I can fare in that dispute. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 09:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hussain Haqqani[edit]

After seeing Hussain Haqqani in your list and being a relatively inexperienced editor, I needed to ask you somethings. I believe there is a portion of the Wikipedia article on Hussain Haqqani which violates the Wikipedia rules and guidelines:

"The Wall Street Journal described Haqqani as "a hostage" while he was in Pakistan and published an interview with him from the Prime Minister's house in which he outlined why he was hated by Pakistan's intelligence services and Jihadi groups.[47] Michel Hirsh, writing in The Atlantic, described Haqqani as "The Last Friendly Pakistani" towards the US[48] Jeffrey Goldberg, writing for The Atlantic and Bloomberg News, has been a consistent supporter of Haqqani, calling him "The Hardest Working Man in Washington" and criticising Pakistan's military and security services[49][50] Simon Tisdall of The Guardian called Haqqani "an instinctive ally of the west" and attributed Memogate to the ambassador's difficult relationship with Pakistan intelligence service.[51]"

Isn`t this portion based on the OPEDs which I believe goes against the wikipedia policies. Can you elaborate on this because I want to remove this section — Preceding unsigned comment added by DelusionMBT (talk • contribs) 18:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DelusionMBT: Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and every editor whether new or old has the same right to edit. You can go ahead and make your edits outlining your reasons in the summary line for those changes if someone objects to your edits then there are processes to deal with that. I am willing to help if you need any help understanding any process or a policy but as I said you don't need mine or anyone else's permission to make an edit which you consider right. Thanks for reaching out though, I appreciate it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear SheriffIsInTown,

Thank you for your response. We definitely need more people like you amongst our midst. Stay blessed don`t loose hope all the best infact people like you are the hope for the majority of Pakistanis. Thumbs up :) DelusionMBT (talk) 08:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1965 Indo-Pak war[edit]

I would like to bring to your attention that MBlaze is involved in pushing a rather sinister POV on the Indo-Pak article including removal of sourced content which favors Pakistans claim, he has already removed a lot of content basing his argument that it unreliable simply because its by pakistani sources. Can you please take notice or inform some other editor to take notice? Can MBlaze be nominated for a block for being a POV pusher? Thank youDelusionMBT (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DelusionMBT: I have added Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 to my watchlist. I will see how I can help improve that page in future. It's my policy not to go after other people's edits and I don't check edit history of a page past the point of me adding the page to my watchlist.
Also, I don't seek blocks for other editors until I exhaust all of my options. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed to defend myself against sock puppetry investigation[edit]

A sock puppetry investigation was launched by MBlaze against me calling me a sock of TalhaZubairButt (I have no idea who this guy is) after I spoke against him being a POV pushover and demanded a ban on him for being a POV pusher. I believe he has now withdrawn his report against you in the "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions". After I said the following and demanded a ban on MBlaze at Trip Wire talk page as well.

This i what I wrote on the "Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring" 

*I don`t think that Sheriff did anything wrong, this selective justice involving pushing a specific point of view based on nationalistic fervor should have no place on Wikipedia and should end. Alleging that Sheriff is involved in any sorta edit war is laughable, I have been following his edits for quite some time now on issues related to Pakistan, Bangladesh and India especially the level of patience he has shown on the Hussain Haqqani article to accommodate the POV pushers is remarkable. This selective bullying is not only shameful but quite unprofessional as well on part of the Wiki community by a handful nationalist maniacs who don`t have the patience to listen or accommodate the opposition`s point of view no matter how much well sourced it may be.
  • I also want to bring it to your attention that MBlaze Lightning is involved in mass removal of content, from the 1965 Indo-Pak war article [1]. The editors should pay special attention to that as well. He has already removed well sourced content, relating to Pakistan and is pushing a specific POV based on the same nationalistic rhetoric which he champions in his rather bigoted posts. I hope he can be banned as per Wiki policies for being a POV pusher.


He has now withdrawn his allegation. Can you please kindly tell me how can I defend myself against him and can we demand a ban on him for being POV push over especially in 1965 war section. Thank you

Here is the link of the ongoing investigation, I hope the poor guy TalhaZubairButt knows about this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TalhaZubairButt — Preceding unsigned comment added by DelusionMBT (talk • contribs) 19:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DelusionMBT: After the SPI results, my advice to you is that you go to the SPI and accept all of your sock-puppets whole-heartedly since it's obvious that being an inexperienced editor you did not know that accounts other than the ones mentioned in SPI can show up as well. Then you should request blocking of all your accounts except one. This way, I am pretty confident that your one account might be allowed to function or you might get a temporary short ban. Don't make a mistake of denying the results because that won't work. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1965". 11 January 2018. Retrieved 9 May 2018 – via Wikipedia.

Bangladesh liberation war[edit]

Sherriff, you're a good editor and you do a lot of good work on Wikipedia and I appreciate your efforts to bring balance to Pakistan related articles (especially since Mar4d is gone and TopGun topic banned). But you're moving into dangerous territory with your recent edit on Bangladesh liberation war. I don't have to tell you that there are discretionary sanctions that apply to this article and suggest you self-revert. --regentspark (comment) 17:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: I did not know that discretionary sanctions apply to this article as it's not related to India/Pakistan. I thought Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 came under discretionary sanctions. Also, by looking at WP:ARBIPA, I am unable to understand how my edit is in violation of the principles set there-in and how it does not apply to everyone else involved in this quarry. I am willing to self-revert after understanding the violation. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
India was involved in the BLA, therefore this is covered by the sanctions. I'm referring specifically to the 'disruptive editing' clause below. Your last revert is easily construable as disruptive. I have no desire to protect the page because I do think mostly everyone is editing in good faith but will do that if you don't self-revert. --regentspark (comment) 17:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RegentsPark: How about, i self-revert and you fully protect the page until the differences are resolved. I also claim that my edits are in good faith but if i revert and others keep making changes, especially Vinegarymass911 is non-stop adding information, although with sources but my edits or Talha's edits or TW's edits are also sourced. It's hard to keep track of the changes when somebody like him is making non-stop changes to the page. How about fully protect the page after my revert and then keep it protected until matter is resolved on talk or through some other process. I am willing to go for an RFC but there is not point in doing that if we cannot keep track of the changes. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. That sounds good. --regentspark (comment) 18:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Sheriff. You are taking liberties with truth in making these claims. The people that reinstated edits after RP drew the line are:

The people that reverted back to RP's line are:

The only person that is participating in the talk page discussion from the first group is TZB. Needless to say, I was quite disappointed when you joined the gang. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: I did not mention any line here and i did not see one but i am willing to accept that i have been seeing edits in my watchlist from Vinegarymass911 on almost all Bangladesh related pages and might have wrongly assumed that he has been making major changes on Bangladesh Liberation War as well. Also, to begin-with, he was the one who first removed that whole "Violence against Biharis" section which was sourced so why his sourced edits should stay and anybody else's won't. Also, admin is an editor as well and it does not mean that an admin would draw a line anywhere and everyone will obey, that line should be based on some policy as well but as the admin pointed out the policy so i reverted myself. Also, he is consistently making changes to 1971 Bangladesh genocide now. Would it be appropriate for me now to start reverting him there. There is a dispute going on that page as well and his edits are against an established consensus if anyone else's is. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ok, I wouldn't blame you if you are getting confused between the various 1971 Bangladesh articles. Vinegarymass911 is working on the Bangladesh genocide article which is quite separate. The Bangladesh Liberation War article is essentially the parent of all the 1971 Bangladesh articles. This is the one that was effectively frozen by RP, and now physically frozen as well. This is the one we should work, slowly and methodically. The rest will fall in place afterwards. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Sanctions apply to all article related to Bangladesh, Pakistan, India. So, one cannot say that editing this article by one side is a violation whereas Vinegarymass911 gets a free pass to edit another under-sanctions article. You all know the amount content he has added to that article. We had kinda agreed that per WP:HIST newspapers arent RS, but majority of his edits are sourced from newspapers. Kutaliya and others do point out when TBZ, Sherrif or myself use such sources, but you dont flinch when Vinegarymass911 did it. Double standards? How come an edit from good-faith editors become a POV but not for another editor who have been pushing info continuously? Kutaliya, you rubbished Encarta not being an RS when it comes to history, but you didnt bother to do the same when Vinegarymass911 used Britanica? Regentsspark, this is disturbing, that's all I want to point out.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 21:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If he is using sources inappropriately, please feel free to raise it on the article talk page. Why do you need me to do so? These are not pages that I edit normally. If there are major disputes or edit-wars then I come in to help. Otherwise, it is your territory, not mine. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree that you are biased?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 19:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki policy on contacting[edit]

Are we allowed to exchange contact details (eg email, facebook, other forms of social media) on Wikipedia here or is it impermissible?TalhaZubairButt (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can add your email address in preferences and if someone wants to contact you then they have that option to contact. It's not visible to anyone but once you reply then the other person have your email address. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.Done.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 02:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MBlaze's talk page[edit]

Sherriff, there is no policy that says that a blocked user cannot remove messages from their talk page. Generally, except for the block notice, they can go ahead and remove everything. Repeatedly reverting the editor is disruptive. --regentspark (comment) 19:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: So, you are saying if a user has 9 talk pages then they can edit all their 9 pages. It is not established yet which one is his talk page, User talk:KnightWarrior25 or User talk:MBlaze Lightning or seven others belonging to his other 7 accounts? It still needs to be decided which one is his talk page. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter. A blocked editor removing comments from their talk page is not abusive. Repeatedly reinstating those reverted edits looks like you're just trying to make a point and is disruptive. The editor is blocked and won't be editing for a while, if at all. Let it go. --regentspark (comment) 20:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RegentsPark: Being a blocked user for socking, he is still posting against me on his talk page. Can you remove his last message against me? If I am not allowed to respond to him then why he is posting against me, especially when he is blocked. He also made some accusations against me in that message. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The page is protected. Nothing looks like an attack to me but tell me what you want to remove and I'll remove it. --regentspark (comment) 20:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: You removed my message from his talk page then he added a subsection naming it "Reply to Sherriff". How come my message gets removed and then his reply stays where he accuses of tag-teaming and other stuff. Once you removed my message you should have removed his message "Reply to Sherriff" as well. I don't understand this selective removal. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All gone. Hopefully this time sink has gone as well. --regentspark (comment) 20:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RegentsPark: Ok, thanks but now I am wondering what constitutes a violation of talk page access because I have seen users talk page access revoked before when they went slightly off-topic from their unblock request or they removed something from their talk page while blocked. I mean it would have been okay for him to remove that message once he was unblocked because that message was related to his unblock request. I am involved with this and when he makes false and fake promises and reasons why he should be unblocked then I should be allowed to comment and he can address those objections instead of completely removing the message. I don't understand why an admin would rule in favor of a blocked user who was blocked due to policy violations. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the user isn't behaving disruptively, there is no need to revoke talk page access. It looks to me that MBlaze is using that identity as their main identity so they can - within reason - post messages outlining what they intend to do to return. Like I said somewhere before, I've yet to see a serial socker reform but we need to AGF and give them the chance and focus on editing content instead of worrying about what MBlaze will or will not do. Either way, it's going to be a long time before they can come back. --regentspark (comment) 18:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC's[edit]

Hi Sheriff, since you have said that this is your first RfC, here are some tips. Even though the policy page says that it is ok to have RfC's that have just comments (votes) or to have threaded discussions, usually the uninvolved editors invited by the bot get put off when they see huge walls of text. So, I usually set up a separate subsection called "threaded discussion" and, when a huge thread develops in the middle, I move it to the threaded discussion section.I also add a section for References so that all the references are in one place, and don't break up the comments. Focusing on a single question usually gets better results than asking for comments on a huge complicated edit. The basic objective is to make it inviting to the uninvolved editors. Getting their opinions is basically what an RfC is about. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I think it was a poor RfC. I did not know what else to try instead of endless reverting. I hope next time I will do better. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 08:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the discussion between VM and you was proceeding ok, before you started the RfC. I think the idea of using a separate article to work through the violence on Biharis is worth trying. Most of us don't know the issues because all kinds of numbers are thrown around and we can't tell what is happening without doing in-depth research ourselves.
On another note, does this new editor] look familiar to you? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are giving law enforcement a bad name[edit]

You need to do a proper job of cleaning up your user page, dude. Weapons of mass destruction are not tools of law enforcement either. You are libelling Husain Haqqani. Goading other users on talk pages and at ANI is not appropriate behaviour for anyone who claims to respect the law either, see WP:NOTBATTLE. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sminthopsis84: I suggest you stop pestering Sheriff about his page. Your ANI complaint about it hasn't had any traction among uninvolved users and admins so far. (ArghyaIndian taking the opportunity to express his on grudge (compare [15]) is something else.) Time to let it go. Bishonen | talk 16:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

References[edit]

Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do have a featured article you can consult[edit]

Hi.

While editing Office 365 article, you had expressed interest in seeing a featured article that uses footnote citation style. You can see Microsoft Security Essentials article.

But why don't you actually look at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria instead? It tells you what a featured article needs to have. One of them is:

consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. The use of citation templates is not required.

If there are more questions, I'll be glad to assist.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sock attacks[edit]

Hi Sheriff, My sympathies for the number of sock attacks you have been getting on your talk page. If these socks are any people I know, I hope they will read my lips and stop doing it. This is not what Wikipedia is about! - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: Thank you, with all the disputes we had, I appreciate your gesture! Let them continue, they continue with what they are best at and I will continue with what I am best at! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Human3015[edit]

Human3015 and Kautilya3 are the same person. Rama's Arrow and DBigXrayhas returned with new accounts. --Silk Ruote cabin (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening edit summary Reply[edit]

You made this edit summary Don't you dare call me a "Pakistani POV" pusher again, you will find that you are not that "Bulletproof". You are not a real Sheriff. Even if you are what will you do?????? --Bulletproof Batman (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are not a Batman either, it was directed at the username and not the person. Your username gives an impression of someone who thinks they cannot be blocked hence I interpreted "Bulletproof" as "Blockproof", that was my interpretation and that was what I meant, nothing more than that. So my summary meant that "I am serving you with this notice now, do not call me Pakistani POV pusher again otherwise you will find that you are not blockproof", bringing someone's ethnicity in edit summaries like that can lead you to a block under WP:ARBIPA. I hope you understand now. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I never called you Pakistani POV pusher. I said "reverting Pakistani POV edit". I very well know what you meant by you are not Bulletproof. Administrators as @Abecedare: will support old editors. --Bulletproof Batman (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, why don't you come as an old editor, so the administrators can quickly spot you, you do not need to come as a new editor. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bulletproof Batman (talk) 06:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite[edit]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed edits to comply with RfC consensus & Dispute resolution decision by Robert[edit]

I had filed a DRN against Uanfala and Robert was moderator who had given decision that first line of article should not be written as Saraiki language. You being extended confirmed user please make following edits to comply with DRN moderator decision.

  • Dialect section: to be renamed as "Subdialects" and rewritten as "The sub dialects tentatively proposed for Saraiki  :[27] are Central Saraiki, including Multani, Sindhi Saraiki, Southern Saraiki of Rajanpur and Rahim Yar Khan Districts. Eastern Saraiki which is transitional to Standard Punjabi, Northern Saraiki, or Thali of the Thal Desert. The dialects tentatively proposed for Saraiki by ethnologue are Bahawalpuri (Reasati, Riasati), Derawali, Jatki, Multani (Khatki). The name "Derawali" is used to refer to the local dialects of both Dera Ghazi Khan and Dera Ismail Khan, but "Ḍerawali" in the former is the Multani dialect and "Derawali" in the latter is the Thaḷi dialect.[28][29] 115.186.171.170 (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide me the link for the decision as i could not find it, still it will be my decision whether i want to go by the DRN decision or with completely new version of my own or to a past consensus version depending on when i have enough time to review all the changes since my last edit to that page. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Seraiki". ethnologue.com. Retrieved 9 May 2018.
  2. ^ Singh, Sarina (9 May 2018). "Pakistan & the Karakoram Highway". Lonely Planet. Retrieved 9 May 2018 – via Google Books.
  3. ^ Bendl, Regine; Bleijenbergh, Inge; Henttonen, Elina; Mills, Albert J. (9 May 2018). "The Oxford Handbook of Diversity in Organizations". Oxford University Press. Retrieved 9 May 2018 – via Google Books.
  4. ^ "Background Notes: South Asia, May, 2011". InfoStrategist.com. 9 May 1992. Retrieved 9 May 2018 – via Google Books.
  5. ^ Tucci, Paul A. (18 July 2016). "The Handy Geography Answer Book". Visible Ink Press. Retrieved 9 May 2018 – via Google Books.
  6. ^ Bhugra, Dinesh; Tse, Samson; Ng, Roger; Takei, Nori (20 August 2015). "Routledge Handbook of Psychiatry in Asia". Routledge. Retrieved 9 May 2018 – via Google Books.
  7. ^ "The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency". www.cia.gov. Retrieved 9 May 2018.
  8. ^ nationsonline.org, klaus kästle -. "National Languages of Asian Countries :: Nations Online Project". www.nationsonline.org. Retrieved 9 May 2018.
  9. ^ Guitard, Philippe; Khan, Shahid Ahmed; Bienen, Derk; Invest, European Commission EuropeAid Co-operation Office Asia (9 May 2018). "New business opportunities for EU companies in Pakistan: an investor's guidebook". Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Retrieved 9 May 2018 – via Google Books.
  10. ^ "Western Panjabi". Ethnologue. Retrieved 21 July 2016.
  11. ^ Pereltsvaig, Asya; Lewis, Martin W. (30 April 2015). "The Indo-European Controversy". Cambridge University Press. Retrieved 9 May 2018 – via Google Books.
  12. ^ Sen, Geeti (9 May 1997). "Crossing Boundaries". Orient Blackswan. Retrieved 9 May 2018 – via Google Books.
  13. ^ Bahu, Hadrat Sultan; Hamadani, Syed Ahmad Saeed (9 May 2018). "Divan of Bahu: English Translation with Persian Text". Lulu.com. Retrieved 9 May 2018 – via Google Books.
  14. ^ "India International Centre Quarterly". India International Centre. 9 May 1997. Retrieved 9 May 2018 – via Google Books.
  15. ^ Yar, Qadir; Rafat, Taufiq (9 May 1983). "Puran Bhagat". Vanguard Books. Retrieved 9 May 2018 – via Google Books.
  16. ^ Bradnock, Robert W. (14 October 2015). "The Routledge Atlas of South Asian Affairs". Routledge. Retrieved 9 May 2018 – via Google Books.
  17. ^ Bhatia, Tej (21 August 2013). "Punjabi". Routledge. Retrieved 9 May 2018 – via Google Books.
  18. ^ Bāhū, Sult̤ān (9 May 1998). "ديوان باهو". Hadrat Ghulam Dastagir Academy. Retrieved 9 May 2018 – via Google Books.
  19. ^ Tariq, Dr.Masood (16 January 2012). "Major Punjabi Dialects - TheNewsTribe". thenewstribe.com. Retrieved 9 May 2018.
  20. ^ "sikhchic.com - Article Detail". sikhchic.com. Retrieved 9 May 2018.
  21. ^ Qadeer, Mohammad (22 November 2006). "Pakistan - Social and Cultural Transformations in a Muslim Nation". Routledge. Retrieved 9 May 2018 – via Google Books.
  22. ^ Rahman 1995, p. 16: "the Punjabis claim that Siraiki is a dialect of Punjabi, whereas the Siraikis call it a language in its own right."; Shackle n.d.: "it has come to be increasingly recognized internationally as a language in its own right, although this claim continues to be disputed by many Punjabi speakers who regard it as a dialect of Punjabi"; Lewis, Simons & Fennig 2016: " Until recently it was considered a dialect of Panjabi."; Masica (1991, p. 443) defines Saraiki as a "new literary language"; see also Shackle (2003, pp. 585–86)
  23. ^ a b Rahman 1995, p. 16.
  24. ^ a b Shackle 2015.
  25. ^ Shackle 1977, p. 389.
  26. ^ Lewis, Simons & Fennig 2016.
  27. ^ This is the grouping in Wagha (1997, pp. 229–31), which laregely coincides with that in Shackle (1976, pp. 5–8).
  28. ^ Masica 1991, p. 426.
  29. ^ Grierson 1919, pp. 239ff.
  1. ^ 2013 estimate

Women in Red World Contest[edit]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Request for Information on secondary vs primary sources.[edit]

Hello Sheriff, I was wondering if you could help shine some light on the labyrinth of rules and regulations of wikipedia on secondary vs. primary sources. I am not certain if this: Respect_secondary_sources only applies to medical sources, or secondary sources in general. It refers to this supplement page Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources but the supplement page states that it is not yet thoroughly vetted by the community... I also discovered this line of text on the no original research page about secondary sources "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.". which seems to be valuable in my case.

Any advice or help with the rules is greatly appreciated. Thank you.24.132.187.209 (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, welcome to the most screwed up system in the world, I have seen editors use a policy one way while others use in completely the opposite way. My simple explanation to identify primary vs. secondary source would be, for example you claim that you live in Netherlands, that would be primary but if I claim that you live in Netherlands, that would be secondary. Another example, writer A claims in his own book that he has accomplished this, this and this in life, this is primary but if writer B claims in his book that writer A has accomplished this, this and this in his life, that would be considered secondary. WP:No original research is the proper policy though, the other one is only for medical. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the super fast reply, Good Sir! It is very much appreciated, it was impossible to ask anywhere else... By the way, could wikipedia editors dismiss Valid Secondary Sources, written by professors and published by renowned academic publishers, Springer and Routledge no less - by demanding that only academic sources based on "analysing primary data" are allowed or valid (which sounds a lot like Primary Sources, seeing they are close to the source)?24.132.187.209 (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Simple answer "No", they cannot reject a scholarly source the way you describe it if we go by the policy but my personal opinion is opposite to that, I think for a source to be authentic, we should be able to trace the source to the original otherwise an author can write anything sitting in his drawing room which has no value in my view. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again, Good Sir! It is very hard to find people that actually reply. The two sources might also have analysis of primary data, and thus could be primary sources (as well as secondary sources, depending the perspective), sadly it is inaccessible (google books limitations). Sadly, I doubt that the opposite party, would even accept any of these two sources, whether they be secondary or primary sources, seeing they are inconvenient for him and his agenda either way... He repeatedly misinterpreted these sources (quickly detected by checking the sources). Failing that approach, he tried to destroy the evidence by deleting quotes from the sources which prevented future misinterpretations, without ever mentioning it in his edit descriptions) and now discredit them (which is why I am asking about secondary vs primary sources)... On top of that, I just found out he finally made a talk page, and then stealth condemns me (in his edit descriptions) for not showing up... while he never send me any notification about it whatsoever... is that even allowed? Is there a way to contact an moderator(s) I've been searching for so long but cant find any, I am tired of this troll...24.132.187.209 (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Try WP:3, if that does not help, then you can try WP:DRN, both of these processes were never of any help to me whenever I needed it but who knows, you might be able to get something out of it. As for notifying about talk discussion, I do not think it is necessary and there is no way to notify an IP address anyway. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sheriff Good Sir, my sincerest apologies, upon returning home from the airport... I noticed that KartvelianCelt here has followed me around, while I was gone. Worse, he thought he had the right to just barge in uninvited, at the Talk pages of people I sought advice from. I never invited him, nor even mentioned your name to him, at all. The time gap between his last series of edits took 11 days (31 march to 10 April), Yet I never followed him around and harassed the people he visits, on their pages, just to get his attention... I don't know what his problem is... Here, he claims he could not notify me, alright... yet here at another Editors talk page [16], he stated he "invited" me post on the talk page of the wikipage in question. I triple checked my talk page history. I never gotten any invitation or note on my Talk page, whatsoever.
However, someone who I've never seen before, called Kautillya, showed up and left a "good faith" reminder on my page, that same day, on the 13th... And, while searching for Kart's none existing invitation, I found another one of Kautillya's messages instead, his first message [17] accusing me of "edits that do not conform to our policies and therefore have been reverted. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism"... while I was away? Impossible. Seems like he messed up. He did removed that, but only after posting that "good faith" reminder, then apologized and left [18]... Weird. Clicking on Kautillya's talk page and talk archive shows he is drowning in disputes, edit wars, with all kinds of rather heavy accusations lodged against him. Yet, he hypocritically posts all that on my Talk page? Btw, thank you for the suggestions of WP:3 and WP:DRN, I will look into them. Thanks again! 24.132.187.209 (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't notice that you had a talk page. I swear you only made this recently... anyway, we can discuss the issues there instead. As I said previously, I only followed you around because I did not know any other way to communicate with you. Also, although you did not name me, you did make some pretty strong accusations against me. That's okay as I understand edit conflicts on wikipedia can be really frustrating but please try and stay calm when interacting with users you disagree with. I'm not "harassing", "trolling" or "vandalising". As I've made clear in my most recent comments, I would prefer dialogue rather than agro ;) --KartvelianCelt (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My good friend, 24.132.187.209. How am I to send you a notification when you are not even registered? What can I do? Again, I clearly stated that I did not intentionally try to destroy evidence: I may have erased one of your sources by accident in the past for which I am sorry but there is no way I intentionally tried to destroy your evidence. In any case, here is a chance for some dialogue. We can discuss this on the talk page without the need for any further agro. By the way, is my current phrasing satisfactory for you? I did change the wording from "wine-like drink" to "wine". That was your main concern, right? Sorry SheriffIsInTown for writing this on your talk page. There is no other way I can communicate with that IP address without following his activity. --KartvelianCelt (talk) 06:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban[edit]

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are indefinitely banned from all edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan, broadly construed. You are warned that any further disruption or testing of the edges of the ban will be met with either an indefinite topic ban from all topics related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan or an indefinite block, without further warning.

You have been sanctioned per this AE discussion.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please go to WP:TBAN and read the information there to see what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period, to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal against the imposition of the ban, see WP:AC/DS#sanctions.appeals which explains the ways in which you may appeal. Additionally, you may ask for this sanction to be removed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard after six months of positive contributions to Wikipedia. GoldenRing (talk) 08:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded "rescues" of sources[edit]

You recently made this edit to Goldbach's conjecture. The edit summary claims this: "Rescuing 8 sources and tagging 0 as dead. #IABot (v1.6.5)".

There are no sources that need rescuing. Rather, 0 are dead, as the edit summary indeed says.

The edit makes the references annoying and seems to provide no positive value (IMO). I am unaware of a consensus of editors to the contrary. Hence, I have undone the edit.

Looking over your list of recent contributions, I saw that you been been making similar "rescues" with many other articles. What is the purpose, and do editors of other articles agree with it?

TheSeven (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSeven: I thank you for reaching out to me but your concern is not valid. Please read WP:LINKROT, according to that, it is highly desirable to add archive links at the time when the citation is added and that is exactly what I am doing, I am adding archive links to references which does not have them. Additionally, it is not necessary for the link to be dead to be rescued. The links can be rescued before becoming dead especially if they are in danger of being rotten soon. If you would notice, not all of references are being rescued which means that the ones which do not have a danger of being dead in future are left alone but the others are being rescued. It's not necessary for editors to agree with it, the policy is there and I will keep following it, if someone has an objection, they can reach out to me like you did and I will explain it to them. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kind thanks for explaining this. I was unaware of that policy. It looks to me like you are indeed following that. As you rightly say, that is what matters. With much appreciation, TheSeven (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that WP:LINKROT is not policy, it is not even a guideline. The prophylactic addition of archived ULRs is questionable. There are some highly reliable sites like PubMed (continuously active since 1996) that have existed longer than the Wayback Machine (started in 2001). Hence URLs to PubMed should be exempted from archive links. (Even better, these |url= should be replaced with |pmid= and |pmc=.) Also adding archive links to URL DOIs (e.g., |url=https://doi.org/10.1109/5.771073) should also be exempted (and replaced with |doi=) since they are fixed and less likely to go dead. IMHO, it would be better for a bot to continuously scan URLs, and then add archive URLs if and only if the URL is dead. Otherwise we are unnecessarily cluttering articles with unneeded |archive-url=, |archive-date=, and |dead=no parameters, some of which will never be needed. Boghog (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification and Amendment[edit]

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_India-Pakistan regarding the ARE decision that affected you. — MapSGV (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manual moves[edit]

Please don't do manual page moves, as you did at Orakzai Agency. This loses the page history. The correct approach is to drop a request for swapping article and redirect at WP:RFPP, who will do a round-robin move preserving histories. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elmidae, I take it that you meant WP:RMT, not RFPP? – Uanfala (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Elmidae, point noted! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Uanfala: oops. Yes, so I did. Sorry 'bout that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FATA-KP merger[edit]

Please stop changing the tehsil and agency articles for FATA to say they are in KP, the merger hasn't been put in action yet. FATA is under the president of Pakistan's jurisdiction currently, he hasn't handed over control to the KP government yet.Avg W (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

President has signed the bill, constitutionally FATA is part of KP. Now, the process to complete the changes on the ground can take time, that does not have any effect on constitutional status so it's all good in the bigger picture. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source on the president signing the Constitution (Thirty-first Amendment) Bill, 2018? This source states the bill he has signed is the Interim Governance Regulation and that he has yet to assent to the amendment https://www.geo.tv/latest/197129-president-mamnoon-hussain-signs-kp-fata-merger-bill . I have been trying to find a source that specifically refers to the status of the amendment act and have been unable to find one. I think some of the headlines are potentially confusing, since many refer to the "merger bill" when it appears that this could describe two bills - the Interim Governance Regulation (which does not grant authority to the KP government over FATA on its own) and the Constiution (Thirty-first Amendment) Bill. I realise the changes will occur very soon but I am cautious to update without a clear source on the status of the amendment.Avg W (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

If my words were hurtful then I would like to say sorry for what happened. Happy editing! Saqib (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib: Thanks and sorry for the lecture, if it came out that way! 😀 Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
--Saqib (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bye election spelling[edit]

Hi. I noticed that you recently changed the spelling of ‘Bye election’ to by election for the NA 125 constituency. However, Article 2(vi) of the elections act 2017 clearly states that bye election is spelt with an ‘e’ at the end of it in Pakistani legal terms, which is why I have spelt it like that. Masterpha (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Masterpha:Thank you, I did not know that! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Masterpha: Actually, no proper spellings are By-election, we are supposed to follow independent sources and not official documents, bye-election is less commonly used, in Google Books and News searches, by-election seems to outweigh bye-election by a very wide margin, millions compared to thousands. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but in pakistani law terms it gives a clear spelling of by-election, no matter how commonly it is used around the world, as ‘bye’ Masterpha (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

India-Pakistan arbitration amendment request closed[edit]

The India-Pakistan arbitration amendment request filed on 23 May 2018 (the appeal of certain arbitration enforcement actions by GoldenRing) has been closed as unsuccessful. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@L235: What is the way forward for me now? Can I never appeal again on any forum? Is this sanction considered permanent now? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with Committee procedure, further substantive review of the sanction (i.e. whether it was valid when first placed) is barred. You may "still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months[...]". Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@L235: Once per six months, counting the one just closed or uncounting it? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the intent of that section, counting this appeal, i.e. you may not request the sanction be eased or removed for six months starting today. That's not an official Committee interpretation, but I'd guess that the Committee would agree. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why?[edit]

why did you do this? no edit summary = not cool --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@R'n'B: Definitely a mistake and not cool at all, I thought I was reverting IP, not sure how your edit got in between, I will revert myself. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. We all make mistakes. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of candidates[edit]

Please take a look at Ontario General Election from a few days ago in which the list of Candidates was on the Election page. It was moved to a separate page after the election. Federally, though, I see that the list of candidates started off on a separate page: Results by riding of the Canadian federal election, 2015. So, would you be opposed to a similar list of candidates on a separate page for Pakistani general election, 2018? // sikander { talk } 19:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sikander: Honestly, it is an overkill to have such a long list of candidates on Wikipedia when we will have candidates with their votes listed on individual constituency pages. To me, that is good enough so I do not think that we need to have a separate page with names of all the candidates let alone have it on main election article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SheriffIsInTown: Yeah, I would absolutely not want to maintain a gigantic list like that, but if someone else wants to do it, then there are existing election pages with all candidates in a table and I don't think users should be stopped from doing so. I suppose my recommendation to user Uzair 161 is to start a new page and keep the main election page clean. // sikander { talk } 19:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sikander A separate page such as List of candidates for Pakistani general election 2018 would be a good idea and they can include a link in the main article somewhere probably in See also section. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Hi Sikander Hope you're doing well. I too agree with Sheriff that we don't really need a list of candidates running for July general election because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If we're going to create such a list, we would have to add PA candidates as well which means such a list of all candidates would have to include ten thousands of people, mostly non-notable per WP:BIO. For what its worth, there were more than 15,000 contesting candidates in 2013 as per ECP document and this this news story. --Saqib (talk) 12:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Saqib, I was actually thinking of pinging you when starting this discussion. Maintaining a huge list of all candidates would be tiresome, but if someone wants to do it, they have my blessing. 15,000+ is a bit crazy though and I agree that much data would just be an endless collection of names. Also, user Uzair_161 is new to Wikipedia, so it might not be a good idea to start off with something this big and complicated. // sikander { talk } 12:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sikander I've no problem if someone wants to create party-wise lists such as "List of PML-N candidates or List of PTI candidates in the Pakistani general election, 2018" but I guess we're talking about "List of candidates for Pakistani general election 2018" which I assume is a general list and should accommodate each and every candidate from each and every party and constituency which does not make sense to me because of the concerns I expressed above. As I said, more than 15,000 candidates contested in last general election and I assume the number would be much bigger this time around. --Saqib (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib and Sikander: Any such list would be worthless and would add no value to Wikipedia. I propose adding list of winning candidates to National Assembly of Pakistan page if we do not already do that. I think the whole house should be there. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
List of members of the 14th National Assembly of Pakistan lists all winners. That's a good list covering all the regions and constituencies. Started by Saqib, of course! // sikander { talk } 13:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I've started list the list. Will try to finish it by end of this week. --Saqib (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: Can you bring your draft to main space today? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is in draft at Draft:List of MPs elected in Pakistani general election, 2018. Is it a good idea to list both MPAs and MNAs on a single page? --Saqib (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib: I do not think you need to create one combined list of MPs elected. I was asking if you can bring Draft:List of members of the 15th National Assembly of Pakistan to main space today so we can start filling it in tomorrow? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK sure. --Saqib (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani general election[edit]

Sheriff--you gotta do something about that paragraph that starts "There is a nexus between judiciary and military to influence and subvert...". You can't just say "there is" without attribution to a reliable source, etc. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: The sources are at the end of the paragraph, let me know what do you think about those, I am adding more though! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about the sourcing, it's about how it's written up. You can't state it like it's a fact about the natural world. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: Thanks for your advice, I was not sure about it as well whether I have written it in a proper way or not. What do you think about it now, I added the words, It has been alleged in the beginning! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ride on, Sheriff. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in Constituencies Pages[edit]

First of all, I am not a new user. Second, if I had not added the sources, then you could have notified me about this. I spent some time on these edits and you have reverted all the changes. I have made all the edits using official lists of Election Commission of Pakistan. If you want, I can send you the link. I do not exactly know how to add references. If you could help me on this, it would be great. My email ID is : hassaan1896@hotmail.com Hassaan1896 (talk) 10:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hassaan1896: It would definitely be a very good idea for you to stop editing for a while and learn how to reference because that is very essential for editing Wikipedia and an editor without the knowledge of referencing is not very useful to the project and ought to create more work for others!
Furthermore, the day you were adding the content, ECP did not have the lists published on their website by that day but even if we assume that they had it then why were you just adding names of candidates of one party, this can be considered akin to giving an edge to one party over others and as akin to serving one party's interests and that is not considered a very valuable trait on Wikipedia! If I have to go add all other candidates then I can add MMA as well, it's not a big effort for me and it would save you a precious edit which you can use somewhere where it is more valuable!
Then, when I reverted you on one page, you continued to edit other pages but instead you could have stopped and left me message like you did now telling me about list on ECP website or could have added text in the summary but should I assume now that you do not know how to add a summary line but know how to edit the page? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lists were there already on that day (Friday, 6th July). You can check the date on ECP website on which it uploaded the lists (pdf file) . Well, I was not adding names of any specific party candidates. I was just consulting the lists and removing the parties that were not taking part and correcting the names (if they were wrong or misspelled). There are 10-11 candidates from each constituency. It is not a good idea to add the names of all. I was adding the names of major parties. From a constituency from where some party is not taking part, definitely you have to remove the party's name. And also, you should remove the name of the party unless you mention its candidate in front of it.

I was editing using mobile phone app. That's why, I couldn't get the notifications.

I am hearing about 'summary line' option first time.

I suggest that you should consult the lists and make corrections yourself as it will take time to learn referencing for me and elections are near.Hassaan1896 (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rescuing Links[edit]

Hi, SheriffIsInTown. A while back, you did a mass reference archive / rescue for the Skinny Puppy article. Thanks for that. I was wondering how you go about doing that, when it should be done, and if it's always a good thing to do. Thanks in advance, CelestialWeevil (talk) 04:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winning candidates[edit]

Hey there, I can understand your urge to list the names of the winning candidates, but I suggest we should wait for some hours and let the dust settle a bit. --Saqib (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: I understand your concern but Amjad Ali Khan has won NA-96 and Imran Khan has won NA-95, there is no way the runners up candidate can surpass the lead. These too constituencies are almost decided. You can consider me a responsible editor, I would not add anything if I am not 100% positive about it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I trust you. Go ahead. --Saqib (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I prefer not to update the BLP's on winning candidates unless we have verified RS. --Saqib (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect...[edit]

... this Mir Khan Muhammad Jamali is actually Jan Mohammad Jamali but I'm not sure. Whats your thoughts? --Saqib (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: They are two different people, Jan Muhammad Jamali was running on Balochistan Awami Party ticket while Mir Khan Muhammad Jamali was running on PTI ticket. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay great. Because the names are bit same, and both hails from Jafarabad District, I reckoned both could be same. --Saqib (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

‘Total votes’[edit]

In a recent edit you listed the registered voters under ‘total votes’. The figure you are showing is of registered voters, *not* the total amount of votes. A vote would be a marked ballot paper. маsтегрнатаLк 11:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Masterpha: Marked ballots are the turnout figure then what is the total vote, I figured it was total registered votes. If your point is correct, is there a box to list total registered voters as this figure changes from election to election and should be listed in the election box for each election! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
’Election box registered electors’ should do the job: you don’t even need to add the 100, you just have to use the field ‘reg. electors’ instead of ‘votes’: you can check my latest edit on the NA-61 page if you are unsure. Also ‘total’ would be valid and rejected votes together, which is what is used for the turnout figure. маsтегрнатаLк 14:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Masterpha: Thank you, that is perfect! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani general election, 2018[edit]

  • @SheriffIsInTown: I suggest you use the talk page before making any content reverts. Please do not edit out what the sources are representing to make the article completely one-sided per WP:NPOV. This is a contentious issue, but we need to present both sides of the controversy here if we want to ensure NPOV. Btw, you are also confusing Chaudhry Nisar with the Chief Justice Nisar! Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sheriff, I would really honestly suggest that you refrain from further edits like this. Please note that removing sourced content should not be done pre-emptively. Please! Mar4d (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mar4d: I request you the samething, your changes are at best border at WP:COATRACK, sources claim totally different account than what you are adding, your changes cannot be allowed just because you are adding the sources with them. Why don't you discuss on article talk page before making those changes? My content was looked at by numerous neutral admins before you started making changes, all I am asking you is to obtain consensus and preserve status quo. Please discuss on article talk instead of my user talk. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, you unilaterally removed content when there was no consensus to do so. You also made changes to the lead which are at odds with NPOV and the source material. This is my major contention. Until and unless we resolve this, we can't move further. Please review my comment on the talk regarding presenting a complete rather than one-sided picture. What that means is we include claims of both the contesting parties. My sources (which you removed) one-hundred-percent pertain to the pre-poll allegations. Please also note that there is a difference between fact and allegations, and until there is evidence, we can't present allegations as fact. We should distinguish between both, as this is not the first elections where controversy has erupted. Mar4d (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mar4d: Actually, it's quite the opposite, the content added by me was longstanding, check the page history, I contested your additions right away so you do not have consensus no matter what your claims about sources and NPOV, we can discuss at the talk page and decipher those and then add whatever we agree upon, as for the NPOV, check the page history, the concerns were addressed by Fish and karate and Ivanvector to some extent. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sheriff: The edits by Fish and karate you are alluding to were made several weeks ago. They do not pertain to the recent reverts of sourced content which is focused entirely on pre-poll allegations, which still need to be mentioned for NPOV. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) @Mar4d: I've yet to look at the "allegations of election meddling" section but I found no difference in the lead. Are you okay with the lead or you have reservations? --Saqib (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: I have reservations not Mar4d, last changes are made by Mar4d, his attempts tone the allegations down with which I am not comfortable, I consider them akin to WP:CENSOR, it's like if we cannot completely censor them, let's tone them down. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll look at the "allegations of election meddling" section but as I said above I see no major difference in the lead section. Mar4d just relocated a para In the lead up to the elections..... --Saqib (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib: That relocation makes a major difference, if you don't see a difference then why not accept my version? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK I get it now. Thanks for clearing the things up on the article's talk page. Hope to revert soon! --Saqib (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018[edit]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for your participation at this ANI thread. This editor is heavily involved in the topic area that you are banned from, and your participation there is clearly related to that topic area., you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. ~ Rob13Talk 18:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

SheriffIsInTown (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

@BU Rob13: Please reconsider your decision as I participated in that AN thread unknowingly that I will be violating my topic ban. I have stuck to my topic ban so far and did not step closer to the subject area. Had I known that I am violating my topic ban, I would never have participated in that AN thread as it was not worth the block. Similarly, I see you blocked three other editors for the same violation, I am pretty sure they were on that thread due to that misunderstanding as well. My misunderstanding was further strengthened by seeing others commenting on that thread who had topic bans and I thought since they are commenting while not being blocked then it must not be a violation. You can see my editing history as this is my first block and that too is due to misunderstanding. Requesting you to unblock as blocks are supposed to be preventative and not punitive and my editing history is a proof that I have more net positive for Wikipedia than negative. These few edits on this thread count for 0.000001% of my overall edits. Sheriff ☎ 911 18:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I've lifted the block on the understanding that you will remove yourself entirely from this dispute. If that turns out not to be the case, it's likely the next block will be longer, and I will not lift it. ~ Rob13Talk 20:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I may be willing to reduce this to 24 hours provided I get a guarantee from you that your participation in this dispute is over. I understand you do a lot of good work on Wikipedia, but this protracted and ongoing personal dispute between the dozen or so editors (including all those who were topic banned along with you and a few others) has got to stop. It's a complete drain on administrator resources, and your topic ban was placed to stop it. It's at the point where, if you see one of the other editors' usernames, you should probably hit the back button and go elsewhere. The continuous sniping back and forth must stop. ~ Rob13Talk 19:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BU Rob13: I guarantee you that my participation in that dispute is over and I am serious when I say that I did not even know that the dispute is stemming from that topic area as the topic banned editors who participated in that discussion cannot edit that topic area so my understanding was that this has nothing to do with that topic area. I request you to please lift the block entirely if possible so I do not have to wait for 24 hours to continue my editing related to Pakistan election, you can check my editing history as that was the area where I am focused at and I did not even interact with many of editors participating in that discussion. WP:AN was on my watch list due to some previous discussion and seeing this unjustified proposal I got intrigued to comment but had I known that it can be considered a topic violation then I would have refrained from it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note for remembrance
  • Barely made the block in the eleventh hour of 14 August 2018 at 18:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC) (23:28, 14 August 2018 (PKT)), half hour before the day ended.
  • This was a stupid mistake by me to earn my first block this way, I should have used better judgment.

Premiership and first 100 days of Imran Khan[edit]

These two are very interesting and important topics. I wanted to start both of them but couldn't get enough time and motivation. I'll try my best to contribute to them but I hope you won't let them become obsolete and outdated. --Saqib (talk) 07:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: I am honestly never sure whether to start a topic or not and same thing happens, others create them and I keep thinking whether it is a good idea or too early. So, I was watching Khan's speech and thinking, man, nobody ever talked to Pakistani nation before and as soon as he finished his speech, Prime Ministership of Imran Khan was up but I was still thinking that the other topic might be too early, let him complete 100 days, see what he does and then decide but after seeing @Nauriya:'s message and some digging, I thought there is a precedent in the case of US, the pages are created the election night or next morning and since his party gave a 100 day plan already which means it is first for Pakistan but we have to start somewhere.

I can definitely use some help, I do not consider myself perfect and neither steadfast enough. As long as, you have a source and content is relevant, just go right at it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 09:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Saqib: that these articles must be updated on regular basis, as Khan's ministry moves forward. And for that I am up for any help, please let me know, which section or where you need expansion, as I am very good at that. Also, regarding 100 days plan, it is not based on when a party completes it 100 days, rather it is created the very day the leader is elected and as long as the 100 days plan/agenda is there and with substantial references it is good to go. However, it is important to note that, previously such plan is never presented so it is new as well, as compared to US. Nauriya, Let's talk - 14:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ps: @Saqib: and @SheriffIsInTown: I want you to both see this discussion on keeping the first lead paragraph of Imran Khan article simple.

Interesting @Mar4d:. @SheriffIsInTown: The Express Tribune is tracking Imran Khan's first 100 days in office so this page should help you. --Saqib (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib: Excellent source! Mar4d (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on Imran Khan[edit]

If you're telling me to go see pages would you like to visit Mamnoon Hussain,Justin Trudeau and Asif Ali Zardari? Your point is that every human being is the same? Hello my friend this is wikipedia. Excellency is used for head of states my friend and was used for ex head of states too. Please don't revert the edits again and again because your don't have a valid point — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaydbinumar (talk • contribs) 15:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaydbinumar: I have completely valid point, please do not add it again. These titles are creation of slave minds and against WP:NPOV. It should be removed from other pages as well. I have yet to see a source which addresses Khan as excellency. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SherrifIsInTown I have proposed inclusion of authentic view of Imran Khan that "Spread Betting" is not gambling just like "Buying/Selling" stocks. I thing this is encyclopedic value since he in position to make law in Pakistan. Please provide your opinion. It is in talk of Imran Khan. Adl786 (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Careful with WP:BLP at Fayaz-ul-Hasan Chohan[edit]

Additions such as this are skirting WP:BLP violation territory. For a statement like that to stand, it would require sources beyond a few news articles that read like opinion pieces. I think it's valid to mention criticism of the subject in the article, but it has to be done in such a way that clearly separates opinion from fact. I don't think your original contribution made that distinction. I found out about this through a request at RFPP. I have tried to reword it. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 08:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Airplaneman: The reason why I mentioned that he has "vulgar language" because he used equivalents of f-words on live TV and the sources I included attest to that as one of them put it But there is rude and then there is calling-a-party-leader-a-transgender rude. Not thinly veiled slurs either, but the cuss words of a boys' college playground scuffle. When a public figure uses such language and never regrets or apologizes or accepts that he has done something wrong then we are right to assume that the figure owns what he said and does not care whether his BLP mentions that as well or not.[1]
Several news stories and a couple of editorials appeared recently in difference Pakistani dailies following the latest twin incidents, brining plethora of details. Sheriff, you may want to dig some news article and see if you can find something of interest to add to this BLP. --Saqib (talk) 13:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The rudest man on TV?". www.pakistantoday.com.pk. Retrieved 29 August 2018.

Nabil Gabol[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Nabil Gabol 2. Just a compulsory notice regarding the editing issues with the article. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read your comments on ANI and wanted to thank you and let you to know its always pleasure working with people like you even we have a difference of opinion. --Saqib (talk) 07:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Defaultsort[edit]

Hi and thanks for all Pakistani biographies you've been creating recently. I noticed you don't use the {{DEFAULTSORT}} template in these biographies. Is this intentional as defaultsort doesn't apply? I'm not familiar with Pakistani names so I'm not sure if they are all patronymic or if there are first names and last names. If it is the case of the latter, the defaultsort template should be added to the biographies to sort the individuals by the last names in categories per WP:SUR. Bennv3771 (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bennv3771: Most if not all names in Pakistan are petronymic with an optional title of respect being used in the beginning and an optional family surname being used in the end. For example the subject you reviewed Aghaz Ikramullah Gandapur has Aghaz as a given name, Ikramullah is father's given name and Gandapur is a family surname. Then some people do not use father's name at all and add Khan or name of a personality considered respected in Islam or some other name at the place of father's name. For example Malik Sohail Khan uses Malik as title of respect, Sohail is given name, Khan is free form, just used instead of father's name and Kamrial being used in the lead is the family surname. Some people use title of respect at the end of name same as a family surname. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow that is confusing, but thanks for the explanation! If I understand this correctly, it seems {{DEFAULTSORT}} would apply to a few of these biographies like Aghaz Ikramullah Gandapur, since Gandapur is a family surname. In that case, it would be adding {{DEFAULTSORT:Gandapur, Aghaz Ikramullah}} such that the article is sorted by his family name, Gandapur. Anyway, I'll leave it to you to decide if WP:SUR applies to any of these bios since you're the expert here compared to me. Bennv3771 (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bennv3771: That's not all though, I missed on some twists and turns! 😀 Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

“Others”[edit]

At what point do candidates fall under the “Others” category in the election boxes as per your method? Thanks... маsтегрнатаLк 07:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Masterpha: I am using a logic of competitiveness with the candidate right above plus I also try to make sure that "Others" have less votes in total than the last named candidate. For example, if first candidate have 14,000, second has 12,000, third has 10,000, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh all have 3,000 each, I will list all of them as their total combined votes are 12,000 which is more than 10,000 of the last named candidate but if first candidate had 100,000, second had 98,000, third 20,000, fourth 10,000 and fifth 500 then third is not competitive with the second and total votes of last three fall way behind the second place candidate then I will not list those even if I listed candidates with 3,000 votes in other constituency and here there was a candidate with 20,000 votes. 3,000 votes were more competitive to 10,000 votes than 20,000 are with 98,000! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

Before it gets archived I think you should be aware of this. Cheers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: Damn, many fans of an incompetent editor! 😀 Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Washington members-elect[edit]

Just a heads-up: "platforms" aren't generally used to describe political leanings in the U.S. (and it would be the platform of the Democratic Party, anyway). In Washington state, politicians are elected in nonpartisan elections with party preferences, which they generally are/become members of. Also, all dates should be in MDY format, per U.S. standards. SounderBruce 00:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, where are you getting the full name for My-Linh Thai? None of the places I checked (elections results/materials, newspapers) add Thi to her name. SounderBruce 03:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SounderBruce: I got it from an offline reliable source. Anyway, I would like to thank you for expanding the articles, I thought who cares about state reps, I will come back and expand/improve upon them at my own leisure once I am done creating all of them 😀 Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors![edit]

The 2018 Cure Award
In 2018 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: It's definitely an honor to receive the medical award by the legendary Doc of Wikipedia himself ☺! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism t-ban and interaction ban[edit]

Lifted. See [19]--regentspark (comment) 21:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan request for amendment[edit]

The following motion has passed:

SheriffIsInTown's topic ban from pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan is lifted, subject to a probationary period lasting six months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the topic ban as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the topic ban is to be considered permanently lifted.

-- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

legislators[edit]

Just a reminder to give more complete references than just the name of the newspaper. It should be easier for you to do it when writing the article than to add it later. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your efforts to create bios on newly elected legislators. --Saqib (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Anoosh Masood Chaudhry[edit]

On 16 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Anoosh Masood Chaudhry, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Anoosh Masood Chaudhry completed a medical degree before entering law enforcement and becoming an assistant superintendent of police? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anoosh Masood Chaudhry. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Anoosh Masood Chaudhry), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week[edit]

Hello there. This is an invitation to join the 50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week. £250 (c. $310) is being given away in May, June and July with £20 worth of prizes to give away every week for most articles destubbed. Each week there is a different region of focus, including one week dedicated to South-South East Asia, which includes Pakistan, though half the prize will still be rewarded for articles on any subject. There's a potential £120 to be won in total for destubbing on any subject or region of your choice. Sign up if you want to contribute at least one of the weeks or support the idea! † Encyclopædius 11:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PTI's inclusion in the 2024 election page[edit]

Hi Sheriff, thank you for your recent edits. I just wanted to discuss the removal of PTI from the infobox and the introduction to the 2024 election page. I fondly remember back in 2018 when PMLN had been subject to substantial intervention against them from 'the boys', you were the contributor who had been at the forefront in trying to highlight this intervention against them. You were correct to argue for this, (and I must admit, I was wrong and acting in a politically biased manner when I tried to play this down).

Nevertheless, the pressure that PTI is facing against them is at a level much greater than what occurred in 2018 against PMLN. PTI (more specifically, the factor of Imran Khan) is undoubtedly very relevant to these elections. There deserves, at the very least, to be a mention of this at the start of the page. Thank you for all of your work! маsтегрнатаLк 14:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning the challenges they encounter amid the context of the backing they've received from “the boys” in the past is acceptable, given that all statements are substantiated by reliable sources. It would be more preferable if it is placed within its dedicated section. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at precedent from 2018, the context of the election with regards to issues like this have very much been highlighted at the page start. маsтегрнатаLк 23:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was included post-election, relying on a comprehensive analysis available from credible sources. We can undertake a similar approach once the elections conclude and trustworthy sources confirm that these actions were aimed at influencing the elections. Currently, there's limited evidence supporting this claim; on the contrary, there's substantial evidence against it, such as their involvement in the cypher case and the events on 9th May. Once credible sources highlighting their victimization to keep them away from the election emerge, we can provide a balanced account, considering other prominent cases like the cypher and 9th May incident, Tosha Khana case, iddah, etc. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


About Imran Khan's inclusion as PTI leader[edit]

Hi there Sheriff! I know of what are you trying to address regarding Gohar's chairmanship but if you look at the Wiki-pages of Party leader and Party chairman, have a look at just what's conveyed their:

  • From party leader page: Party Head or leader of a political party, subject to party's constitutional document need not be elected member of legislature and is therefore different from leader of parliamentary committee of a party.
  • From party chair page:The role of a party chairman is often quite different from that of a party leader. The duties of the chairman are typically concerned with the party membership as a whole, and the activities of the party organization. Chairmen often play important roles in strategies to recruit and retain members, in campaign fundraising, and in internal party governance, where they may serve as a member of, or even preside over, a governing board or council. They often also have influence in candidate selections, and sometimes in the development and promulgation of party policy.

See? that was thoroughly I was trying to raise a point, Gohar was elected as the official chairman of the party and the party head is quite different term in broad sense! Still, PTI acts according to Imran's direction whether he is in jail! Wallu2 (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are the provisions outlined in their party constitution? Is there a distinction made between the roles of leader and chairman? Does it specify that Imran will serve as leader indefinitely, while also establishing a separate position for chairman? Could you provide their party constitution as a reference for this information? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes! Umm.. I guess I should let it go because PTI's constitution thoroughly states on Page 18:
The Chairman will be the leader and head of the party..[1] Wallu2 (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "PTI Constitution". Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf. 2017-06-08. Retrieved 2024-01-29.

Reverting My edit without any reason.[edit]

I recently edited in NA-1 page and you reverted it without any reason. I was adding candidate list for 2024 election and because of your "revert" my edit got erased and I couldn't save candidate list which took me 30 minutes to create Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I regret if your candidate list got messed up. Unfortunately, I cannot predict people's actions to anticipate their next moves. The edit I reverted only included constituency names that did not match the official ECP constituency names. I provided an explanation for the revert in the summary. There was a valid reason behind it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed parenthesis because of uniform suffix. I request you to secure election pages of Pakistan to prevent vandalism. Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting and changing data i enter[edit]

What is your issue man? You are reverting my edits and creating disturbance. Why are you doing this? My intention is to update articles and instead of working on updating articles you are continuing to revert and change data I enter, which I consider as harassment and creating disturbance. Why? Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have exclusive ownership of the articles; anyone can assess your edits and revert them if they disagree. Here are my disagreements/suggestions for you:
  1. With elections looming just nine days away, several constituencies boast over twenty-five candidates vying for seats. It's impractical to add all these candidates before election day. I'm opposed to listing candidates pre-election, as many are not notable. Instead, we should await the results and then add the winners, runners-up, and any other candidates with significant votes. The rest can be grouped under "Others." Adding just the selective candidates before the elections violates the principle of neutrality (WP:NPOV).
  2. It's crucial to refrain from labeling independent candidates as PTI candidates. This designation does not align with their official status as per ECP regulations.
  3. Placing your preferred candidate at the top of the list is not permissible. Some form of sorting, such as alphabetical by first or last name, should be employed.
  4. It's inappropriate to selectively invite editors who you believe will support your stance during conflicts with other editors.
Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am just adding election boxes because It would be a lot of work to add election boxes in more than 800 constituencies during and after elections. It was my first time working during elections. I know I don't own any article in Wikipedia and you also don't own too so don't impose your orders on me.
I added candidates from Form 33 of ECP and candidate who received PTI ticket are added as PTI candidate because he\she is PTI backed Independent candidate. In senate election of 2018 PMLN candidates which received party tickets ran as Independents but they were shown as PMLN in election page of Wikipedia. I know that Wikipedia is an international platform and I am trying my best to be as neutral as possible. I added PTI backed Independent candidates as PTI because they got PTI tickets and after SC decision they automatically turned into Independents but they are still supported by PTI even in news they are labeled as "PTI backed Independents".
According to you if adding election box before polling is against neutrality than I will not add election boxes. There is no preferred candidate. I just added candidates of parties first and then Independents.
I didn't invited any editor I just wanted to know What should I do in this situation. I neither want nor have time to argue with you. I am just here working to update on my country's articles which were not updated by anyone and now when I am working you came and starting to argue. Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop Reverting my edits. ECP notifications, Volumes didn't had parenthesis in constituencies. Moreover It is easier to search constituencies without parenthesis. Indian constituencies articles also removed parenthesis from their constituencies which made search a lot easier. I think you have some issue with me. I neither want to argue nor want to waste my time on you. Instead of wasting your energy on some brackets see Karachi Division's districts articles which were moved by someone without any notification or source Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SheriffIsInTown Please comment HERE on RfC. For history you can see THIS. Ameen Akbar (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the drive![edit]

Welcome, welcome, welcome SheriffIsInTown! I'm glad that you are joining the drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Fix a random page lacking sources

CactiStaccingCrane (talk)18:55, 1 February 2024 UTC [refresh]via JWB and Geardona (talk to me?)

Unreferenced articles drive[edit]

Hi, I reviewed your contribution to List of South Korean films of 1974. Note that adding just one reference to one long list does not make the article fully referenced. In these cases, please tag the article with {{more references needed}}. Broc (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reviewed another of the articles you worked on recently, Bhimbor Deori. Unfortunately, I had to remove the source and reinstate the {{unreferenced}} tag. The article was written using Wikipedia as a source, it does not make sense to use it as a reference in the Wiki page. Have a look at the copyvio report.
Please pay attention to the quality of the sources you are using. Ping me if you need help. Broc (talk) 06:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, if after your edit the article is fully referenced but still relies on one single source, as it was the case here, please tag it with {{one source}}. Thanks :) --Broc (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi it's me again. Hopefully this is the last message ;). I checked Faisalabad Dry Port and noticed you still did not add any maintenance tags even if the page is mostly without references. Once you add a reference, please tag the page appropriately:
  • using {{more references needed}} if your source only covers a minor part of the article, and the majority is still unsourced
  • using {{one source}} if your source covers all of the article content, but it's only one source.
  • using in-line {{citation needed}} if only a few isolated sentences do not have a source.
I would ask you to please go back and check your last edits, otherwise I would have to review them all. As I would prefer spending time reviewing contributions from other users as well, let me know if you can help with this task. Broc (talk) 07:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Broc, I acknowledge your concerns, but the drive's sole requirement was to reduce the backlog of articles lacking references, and adding just one reference met that criterion. However, I'm open to revisiting the articles and adding appropriate maintenance tags where necessary. The only valid concern in my opinion you have is Bhimbor Deori one so once I add a proper source to that article, should I use WP:FEB24 in the summary line again? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the reply. Of course the goal of the drive is to reduce the backlog, but we should also strive to keep good quality level on Wikipedia. That means also correctly marking articles that are not properly or not fully referenced, so that other editors will be able to work on them in the future. If you remove the maintenance tags from an article, readers assume it's at a good quality level, which might not be the case. Please tag articles accordingly, it is not a big deal :)
Regarding your second question, I don't know if you should add WP:FEB24 again. If you are unsure, I would suggest you to ask in the talk page of the unreferenced articles wikiproject. I don't think it's a big deal either way. Thanks for helping! Broc (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Deori, If I determine that Wikipedia article is the copy of the Sentinel instead of the other way around, would it be fine to add same source while paraphrasing the Wikipedia text? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. The article copied from Wikipedia, so it cannot be used as a reliable source. Please make sure to avoid this sort of circular referencing, see WP:CIRCULAR. Broc (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Small follow-up, I was looking at your edits again as you are at the top of the leaderboard of the drive. First of all, thanks for all the effort!
I know I said earlier that you should use {{one source}} if the entire article relies on one single source, but in the case of very short stub articles such as Wazirabad Junction railway station, one source is more than sufficient, without need for further tagging. Thanks again! :) Broc (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please slow down[edit]

Hi, I'm here to echo the concerns that Broc raised above. First off, I do appreciate your work on the unreferenced articles drive and your willingness to respond to feedback from others is commendable. However, I have also discovered issues with your references. On List of renamed cities in Iran, the book you cited is both a fictional novel and the publisher admits it is a self-published source. And worse, the book lifted the blurb that you cited from another Wikipedia article! Compare the 2015 version of Ahar: The new king insisted on ethnic nationalism and cultural unitarism and implemented his policies with forced detribalization and sedentarization. He renamed Qaradağ as Arasbaran to deny the Turkic identity of the inhabitants. You also cited the Indian Railways Fan Club on a number of Pakistan railway station articles, but I am concerned that IRFCA is a self-published source, and potentially unreliable. I may ask for a second opinion on IRFCA on the unreferenced articles Wikiproject talk page.
I urge you to slow down and take the time to vet sources before citing them. Try to figure out who is publishing the source and if there is any level of editorial control before the author can post their work. Searching the archives of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is a good idea when in doubt. And take at least five to ten minutes to find the best possible source, not merely the first passable source on Google. The process will take more time, but the quality will be worth it. Thanks, and happy editing. Altamel (talk) 08:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I had to revert four of your edits, because the source you cited did not verify the information in the article:
Now I see you edited List of Mexican films of the 1990s again, adding a different source, which yet again does not verify the statement. In the source you added, there is no mention that Total Recall' is a 1990 Mexican movie. Please take some time to find good quality, secondary reliable sources that actually support the statements you are trying to reference.
Consider that all articles that fail review will not count as points for the drive. Take some time to find good quality sources for the articles you are sourcing, as Altamel above already told you. We are here to build a high-quality encyclopedia, not just to collect points and badges. --Broc (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Wild Grinders source you removed, it states the following on page 337, what more you are looking to verify?:
"Based on his own experiences, former professional skateboarder Rob Dyrdek created this television comedy series for Nicktoons that ran for 52 episodes from 2012 to 2015. Set in Sprawl City, the series focused on the shenanigans of Lil Rob, an upbeat, preteen skateboarder and his sidekick Meaty, a talking English bulldog. Together with their skateboarding friends Goggles, Emo Crys, Jay-Jay, Jack Knife, Spitball, and Flipz (the only girl), they comprised the Wild Grinders. The holiday episodes:" (then it lists the episodes)
Would it be fine to restore that source? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't comment on Wild Grinders because I don't have access to the book. Thanks for trying to fix List of renamed cities in Iran. However, I'm still not satisfied with your latest edit. The journal article you found is better than the previous one, but it actually clarifies that Arasbaran is not a city, but a region, and thus Qaradağ/Arasbaran should never have been listed on List of renamed cities in Iran. Please let me know if you would be OK with me removing that entry, and perhaps you could try to find a source for a different city. Altamel (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Altamel Do you object to moving the list to "List of renamed places in Iran" instead of deleting an entry for which we already have a source? This is because the region was indeed renamed and it falls within the territory of Iran. The list should not necessarily be limited to cities, it can include regions as well. It wouldn't make sense to have a separate list for regions and include just one entry. The current list can incorporate the region with a slightly modified name. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've given your proposal consideration, but after further investigation I'm not comfortable with that approach. Of the 17 entries on the list, 13 are are indisputably cities. I found 3 entries that don't fit the scope of the list. They are (Kivi/Kowsar), (Mugan/3 Cities Germi, Parsabad and Bileh Savar), and (Khorasan/Sain Qaleh) - if you look at the Wikipedia articles for each, half of the entry is a city, but the other half is a region. It doesn't make sense to say that a region was renamed to a city because they are different places, and those entries should be removed as they wouldn't even fit on a list of renamed places. The only true region-to-region rename is Qaradağ -> Arasbaran. In my opinion, it doesn't make sense to rename this entire list of renamed cities just because one renamed region was erroneously included. But let me know your thoughts? If you can find another editor who supports renaming the article, I'll withdraw my objection. Altamel (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran @LouisAragon What are your thoughts on this matter? Should we delete the sourced entry that's not a city, or should we consider renaming the article to "List of renamed places in Iran"? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Hmm, not sure. I'm kinda indifferent - both suggestions sound good to me. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024[edit]

"You cannot just barge in and start changing already established content. It seems as though you are here to unveil history rather distort it in your way since yesterday. There are editors who have been unveiling history for decades here". This is your second comment which is very uncivil. Please stop this behavior or I have to escalate this to admins. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been asked multiple times to not remove sourced information without a WP:CONSENSUS. Please follow that and use talkpages where you disagree. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apply that on yourself as well and stop reverting. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not removing sourced information. We have to cooperate please. Thanks. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 13:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please edit back the page[edit]

In bangladesh religion section please edit it again back to old. Irreligion has indeed risen.Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:A75B:7100:20FF:27F7:2C9A:4F31 (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Official notification of ECP[edit]

You've been on a spree of creating articles an MNAs, but have they been officially notified by the ECP yet? Saqib (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Object to something which you, yourself have never done. The last election was on July 25, 2018, and this is the first article you created, which was done on the same day as the election; then, you continued creating articles despite no official notification from the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). Back then, it was acceptable for you, but now you're questioning my actions. Engaging in a content dispute with another editor shouldn't escalate to bringing it up at ANI and AFD. I didn't anticipate this behavior from you. Once a reliable source reports that a member of parliament is elected, they become notable for an article. If you're unable to contribute in this area yourself, that doesn't justify hindering others from contributing. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a mistake was made in the past doesn't justify repeating it. Mirza Akhtar Baig is not and will never be a winner. His election has already been challenged and you've already created a BLP on him under WP:POLITICIAN. Can you provide one single link to a RS that clearly states "Mirza Akhtar Baig has been elected as a member of parliament." I'm not stopping you or anyone else, but let's avoid engaging in OR while advising others against it. --Saqib (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dunya News source is in the article which states Mirza Akhtar Baig has won as far as the challenge is concerned, the challenges keep happening months later that does not mean that we should hold off for months and no, that was not the mistake, it was your consistent behavior throughout past elections, you used to start creating articles as soon as any network reported a winner. You created hundreds of articles that way. And per WP:POLITICIAN, you do not need official ECP notification, one reliable source is good enough. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mirza Akhtar Baig for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mirza Akhtar Baig is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirza Akhtar Baig until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Saqib (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Muhammad Ameer Bhatti[edit]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Muhammad Ameer Bhatti, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2029 Pakistani general election[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:2029 Pakistani general election indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:April 2029 events in Pakistan[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:April 2029 events in Pakistan indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2029 elections in Pakistan[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:2029 elections in Pakistan indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 03:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Reverting Edits[edit]

I had enough with your behaviour. You should stop reverting my edits for no reason. You are not doing right. Your bullying attitude should be stopped Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is very off-mark, I never revert for no reason, I give my reasons in the summary. Disagreeing with another editor is not classified as bullying. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First you said to restore if it says him PTI backed. When I added source then you reverted it again. What's your problem?
Your attitude is very inappropriate. I am here to work to improve pages and you keep harassing by reverting my edits. I am noticing you are bullying with me over and over again. I don't want to waste my time arguing with you. Do something else useful other then reverting my edits. Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone has different definition of usefulness, countering POV pushing such as yours is useful as well. I started the talk thread on relevant page, instead of participating there, you reverted again. That is not going to help until we resolve the matter with discussion. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We already have discussed for many days in 2024 Election page and many editors aggreged to add PTI backed Independents PTI-backed Instead of other Independents. So there's no need for discussion. There are 266 National and more than 800 provincial constituencies. Do you want to discuss each constituency? I don't think we can waste this much time on such discussion which already has ended in main election page. Instead of that we should work on adding results instead of restarting already ended discussion. Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is totally a different matter plus that change was pushed without consensus, there were many opposing editors. Also, If you would wrongly list results on each constituency page then you will counter opposition on each constituency page which could possibly lead to a discussion. If you have time to add wrong results then you should find time to engage in a discussion with opposing editors. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think I'm irresponsible to add wrong list? I added result of NA-1 and wish to add results of other constituencies based on Form-47 issued by the ECP and also tallying it to PTI ticket holders as well. In 2024 Election page almost everyone aggreged to add Independents backed by PTI PTI-IND based on National and International Media sources. Constituencies and their results are integral part of election process so there is no need to restart discussion which is already ended just because of your opposition. Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was no such agreement. Here is the Form-47 issued by ECP, it states Abdul Latif - Azad (Independent), where does it state PTI or PTI-IND or PTI-SIC? They did not run under any such classification. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about This This and This? Whole Media is stating PTI-IND/PTI backed independents and all of the people are call them PTI backed Independents. They elected as PTI-IND candidates and now all except their leaders are sitting in assemblies as SIC-PTI. Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, you stated, you were following Form-47 when I showed that Form-47 listed them as mere Independent then you backtracked and brought other sources to support your POV but then your revisions do not even align with those sources. There were discrepancies in all of your edits, leading to a conflict. Firstly, categorizing them as PTI-SIC was inaccurate because their alliance didn't exist on Election Day. Additionally, your initial edit lacked a source, leaving it open to objection. Moreover, you substituted PTI for PTI-IND. If you prioritize Dunya News over ECP, ensure to adhere to their interpretation correctly. Any edits with inconsistencies are subject to reversal, and the reverting editor isn't obligated to adhere to your interpretation. When listing PTI gains from JUI, no source supports that claim; it should either be Independent gains from JUI or PTI-IND gains if you prefer as such. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am taking results from Form-47 and showing PTI backed independents like they are shown in Media sources. It will be misleading for the readers to show PTI-backed Independents as regular independents. PTI-IND has received the highest vote share and became the largest party, we cannot show them as regular independents. I first added PTI-IND but they were not showing PTI party color in election box so I added PTI and added note with he candidate showing "got PTI ticket but running as Independent". I also added the line "he later joined SIC as per party policy". I think it is your favorite topic to argue with every person and waste their time. Even in 2024 Election page when other wikipedians gave sources you still showed opposition. It would be misleading if me and other Wikipedians were adding all independents PTI-backed. PTI-backed Independents had PTI support and PTI vote bank then it is misleading to add them as Independents. In 1988 MQM ran as independents as "Haq prast group" and even in 2018 senate elections PMLN candidates ran as independents but they are still shown as PMLN because they had got PMLN tickets prior to Nawaz Sharif's disqualification ruling of the SC and it would be misleading to add party backed independents as regular independents. Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In all situations, it's essential to adhere to the sources. You have the option to categorize them as Independents based on the official Form-47, as I prefer, along with adding a note as you've been doing. Alternatively, you can follow Dunya News and label them as PTI-IND. If you opt for the latter, you can add them without specifying a party color, or if necessary, it's your responsibility to find a way to include the party color. Each result you include must be accompanied by a source linking to the result for that constituency, indicating the party affiliation you've added. Adding them as PTI is no option as they did not run as PTI candidates. In the future, please communicate content disputes on article talk page rather than addressing them on my talk page. Also, focus on discussing the content rather than discussing me. Many of your remarks are usually about editors, such as "it's your favorite topic to argue" blah blah. Keep the discussion focused on the content dispute, not on the editor. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pakistan. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. 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 and 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. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Quinlan Can you help maintain the WP:STATUSQUO on that article? The disputed additions were promptly challenged, and numerous editors have expressed objections to them. It's evident there's insufficient agreement to retain them in the article while the consensus-building process is underway. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple editors are involved on both sides of the dispute. I would recommend focusing on resolving the dispute instead of trying to get someone to restore your preferred version. Do not edit war. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Quinlan My argument is that the involvement of multiple editors from opposing viewpoints indicates a lack of agreement. It's not about reinstating a favored version; rather, it's about reverting to the version before the dispute arose. These additions can be implemented once a consensus has been reached. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TY![edit]

Thank you for your heroic work copy editing Samuel S. Boyd--I know it's crazy long and I so appreciate your help. jengod (talk) 03:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Assembly of Pakistan[edit]

Hi

Gandapur, Maryam Nawaz, Shehbaz Sharif have vacated seats, so we should update number of MP for National Assembly of Pakistan. Panam2014 (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism of the List of equipment of the Pakistan Army article[edit]

Hello

I need your help regarding the article List of equipment of the Pakistan Army. There is a user that has been vandalizing the article through continuous reversions and addition of sourceless content. Can you please warn this user or at least do something to prevent them from doing this. Your help would be appreciated.

Regards An Asphalt (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Assembly of Pakistan[edit]

Hi, I created an image of the representation of the current seats in the National Assembly of Pakistan, because all other images were outdated, I’m not sure on the accuracy of the seats I’ve shown, I based them on the current sources on Wikipedia. You seemed like the only Pakistani wikipedian I could contact about this. This is the image of the National Assembly, I’m unsure if its accurate: Titan2456 (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tallied the black dots representing PPPP, and there were approximately 73 or 74, which appears to be the correct count. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I updated it! Titan2456 (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 14[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ryokuoushoku Shakai, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eggman.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-editing advice[edit]

Hello SheriffIsInTown and thanks a lot for your in-depth copy-edit of the article Education. I was wondering whether you spotted some general style patterns that I should avoid in future contributions. Some patterns that I saw from your changes:

  • replace basic verbs like "is" with other verbs ("Non-formal education is also structured" -> "Non-formal education also follows a structured approach"; "define what good education is" -> "define what constitutes good education")
  • avoid that-clauses by using gerund constructions and similar devices ("into levels that include" -> "into levels, including"; "dispositions of educated persons that result from this process" -> "dispositions of educated individuals resulting from this process")
  • replace "like" with "such as" ("teaching method, like teacher-centered and student-centered education," -> "teaching methods, such as teacher-centered and student-centered education,"; "International organizations, like UNESCO" -> "International organizations, such as UNESCO")

Were there any other patterns that you became aware of during your copy-edits? Phlsph7 (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I appreciate your message. I wasn't focusing on particular patterns; rather, my aim was to enhance the language overall. You mentioned that the previous FAC failure was attributed to weak, jumpy, and choppy prose, requiring tightening up. My intention was to address these issues broadly without specifically targeting any particular patterns. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying your approach. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page move[edit]

On Abdul Aleem Khan (Hyderabad politician), there was already a discussion and a consensus. If you wish to overturn the consensus, talk to the discussion closer first. – robertsky (talk) 04:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertsky Additional details emerged following the closure of the discussion. The page was relocated to a new namespace which was not part of the closed discussion. There are no restrictions against relocating articles to a new namespace after new information surfaces. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Saqib (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While you may perceive my actions as deliberate, I assure you they are not. We're all human and prone to mistakes, including myself. Despite your assertion that I have expertise in BLPs and should know better, I want to clarify that I always act in good faith. I take issues of COI very seriously and have no intention of damaging anyone's reputation by using unreliable sources. It's possible for anyone to misinterpret something, as was the case with TPMM. Additionally, it's worth noting that you mentioned that every reliable source should have a WP article, yet you've just recently used sources on a BLP without WP articles of their own. We all make mistakes, and I still hold respect for your opinions. It's encouraging to have editors like yourself on Pakistani articles who are willing to defend what they believe is right. I never view you as my opponent; in fact, I enjoy collaborating with you and I'm optimistic we'll find a mutually interesting subject soon. Saqib (talk · contribs) 17:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back to ANI (2)[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.141.195.113.18 (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing redlinks[edit]

I see that you've been copy-editing County of Diez. Much of that work is good. However, in the process, you have removed all the redlinked ill templates. This runs contrary to Wikipedia:Red link and it is very unhelpful. If an article exists in another language's wikipedia, then there is a strong case for havign one on en.wiki too. The ill-redlinks help editors identify where those articles exist and prompt us to create them. They also ensure that, once the article is created, all the articles that should link to it, do link to it. Could you please retain them, in future? Furius (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Furius Sure thing, I will re-add them. I did not know, it will be a big issue. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Furius Restored single instance of each link. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's greatly appreciated! Furius (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024 GOCE drive awards[edit]

The Most Excellent Order of the Caretaker's Star
This barnstar is awarded to SheriffIsInTown for copy edits totaling over 100,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE March 2024 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Dhtwiki (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Total Articles, 1st Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to SheriffIsInTown for copyediting 94 articles during the GOCE March 2024 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Dhtwiki (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Total Words, 1st Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to SheriffIsInTown for copyediting 139,462 total words during the GOCE March 2024 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Dhtwiki (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Long Articles, 1st Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to SheriffIsInTown for copyediting 13 long articles during the GOCE March 2024 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Dhtwiki (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Old Articles, 1st Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to SheriffIsInTown for copyediting 52 old articles during the GOCE March 2024 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Dhtwiki (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Longest Article, 2nd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to SheriffIsInTown for copyediting one of the five longest articles – 21,962 words – during the GOCE March 2024 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Dhtwiki (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great job. It's good to see our Pakistani editors taking on such tasks, I am sure they can be hectic and boring. BTW, if you get some spare time, could you copyedit Maryam's BLP? --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Core Contest has now begun![edit]

The Core Contest has now begun! Evaluate your article's current state, gather sources, and have at it! You have until May 31 (23:59 UTC) to make eligible changes; although you are most welcome (and encouraged) to continue work on the article, changes after May 31 will not be considered for rankings and their prizes. Good luck and happy editing! Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

PTI-backed lawmakers[edit]

Buddy, you're not accurately writing the bios of lawmakers (for example Arshad Sahi) elected with the support of PTI. It should be mentioned that they won with the backing of PTI, rather than being labeled as pure independent candidates. This oversight needs to be corrected for accuracy, even if it's uncomfortable. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 06:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ALL YOU DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Moxy🍁 19:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy Much appreciated! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If your ever interested in being an admin...I am more than willing to nominated you. ALWAYS LOOKING FOR REAL CONTENT EDITOR AS ADMIN, It's a grilling processes and you will need a week worth of time. Moxy🍁 19:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy I'd be honored, but I doubt I'll be considered because of past conflicts. However, I've noticed a significant backlog in the CheckUser area, and I believe one needs to be an admin to assist with that. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Ali Zardari removal of information[edit]

Hi, regarding the recent information I added on Asif Ali Zardari’s page, it is important to keep the information there, as it is the widespread opinion of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf and the leader of opposition. There is no need to remove the information as it is a key part of his second presidency, in his first speech alone, Sunni Ittehad Council parliamentarians interrupted his speech called him a corrupt ‘chor’ in the National Assembly. It isn’t just the opinion of Raoof Hasan, and even if it is, Wikipedia serves to highlight all the opinions, not state whether they are right or wrong. I didn’t undo the reversal of my edit, because I do not want to start any conflicts. I hope any past disagreements are solved between us, and the information is added back to Zardari’s page. Titan2456 (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of information you have removed, not only in the second presidency section, but the entirety of the Phenomenon section, I would highly suggest thinking about undoing this. Titan2456 (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The entire section relied on a single article by one journalist. While I'm not opposed to using the article as a source for specific facts in relevant parts of the article, creating a section halfway through the WP article and naming it after the sourced article seems somewhat out of place. Furthermore, we need to be mindful of it being an opinion piece. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
During the speeches of past presidents, opposition members have always thrown a fit, it has been a norm in Pakistani politics. I did not see anything of encyclopedic value in the content you added. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is highly important to highlight the controversy in his current presidency. I can give additional sources to back up the information removed:
https://www.firstpost.com/opinion/vantage-why-pakistans-mr-10-giving-up-his-salary-doesnt-matter-13748915.html
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2458873/pti-says-king-of-corruption-imposed-on-nation
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/pakistan/imran-khan-calls-presidential-polls-as-unconstitutional-calls-for-nation-wide-protest-on-sunday/articleshow/108355671.cms
https://www.indiablooms.com/world-details/SA/42364/pti-describes-pakistani-president-zardari-as-illegal.html
https://www.geo.tv/latest/539853-pti-dubs-president-pm-illegal-despite-zardaris-call-for-ending-polarisation
https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/1179796-pti-presented-21-cannon-salute-to-president-zardari-today-barrister-gohar Titan2456 (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All these viewpoints stem from individuals associated with the PTI. Considering they've been labeling Zardari and Sharif as corrupt for years, what significance does it hold now? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page is written in chronological order, so it makes sense to add his current allegations on his current presidency section. Titan2456 (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for political propaganda. By your logic, we now include that PTI interrupted his speech and threw such and such slogans, next time they do that, we include that again since it is in chronological order so we will have to mention their protest and slogans five years in a row, I do not think this has any encyclopedic value whatsoever. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the information I added mentioned elsewhere in the article? Titan2456 (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would understand removing saying he is corrupt over and over again, but his allegations of rigging are specific in this instance. Titan2456 (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not oppose it, I shall re-add the information of his allegations that are specific to his second presidency. Titan2456 (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting User Saqib on Administrator Notice Board[edit]

Dear SheriffIsInTown,

I saw Saqib has been very unreasonable towards other Pakistani contributors in Wikipedia, he has been requesting invalid article deletion without warning or contribution in article. His actions are against Wikipedia Harassments WP:HA and Personal Attack WP:NPA polices. He has been Wikipedia:Casting aspersions which can be view at my talk pages and when I ask him to be friendly he started harassing by invalid deletion request and invalid tags adding. Thus I have reported him to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard so Administrator may take action, I request you to please share your thoughts there. Thanks Faizan Munawar Varya chat contributions 00:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism of the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor article[edit]

Vandalism of the above mentioned article by an IP An Asphalt (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting[edit]

It's concerning that you consistently revert my edits without initiating any discussion first. Reverting edits without engaging in dialogue undermines the process of collaborative editing and also gives the impression of WP:OWNERSHIP. I urge you to consider discussing changes before resorting to reverts. Returning to the topic, it's common for public officials to contribute columns and opinion pieces to newspapers. However, we typically refrain from mentioning such contributions. What makes this case different ? —Saqib (talk | contribs) 10:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib What were you up to? Criticize actions you don't engage in yourself. If you don't want changes undone, refrain from deleting sourced content. When it comes to initiating discussions, it's not solely the responsibility of one editor; any involved editor can do so. Your argument about typical behavior is subjective; what's typical for you may not be for others. Just because you typically avoid something doesn't mean I do too; your behavior doesn't dictate mine. The content you're removing is important and should remain. Can you name another judge from either the Supreme Court of Pakistan or any of the five high courts who contributed to media outlets before becoming a judge? Sattar is the only one, which sets him apart. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well feel free to revert if you notice obvious disruptive behavior. However, if there's no evident vandalism or disruption, it implies there's a content dispute. In such cases, it's important to strive for a discussion on the article's talk page, rather than engaging in reverts. And this isn't the first or second instance, it has occurred several times before, and I believe I've given this advice previously. And, it's not necessary to include each and every detail mentioned in sources. per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I can't recall any specifics but there're several public officials including judges who regularly contribute columns to newspapers. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 13:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This behaviour seems to be in accordance with Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. It is normally the person being reverted, who is expected to initiate discussion on the talk page. Furius (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib Here, you added everything you found in the sources. The political career section of this first time public office holder is 4,429 words almost half of a any normal country article (just that one section), there, you do not remember WP:TOOMUCH and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I anticipated this might come up again, as it has in the past on this talk page, but it's not a valid excuse. I'll remind you of our this discussion where I requested you to trim-down the BLP, but you didn't seem interested. And also, I disagree with your assertion that I've included each and every detail on this BLP. There's still a lot I haven't added because I deemed it unnecessary and WP:TOOMUCH. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 14:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib In this context, not everything is included; many routine matters such as bail cases are omitted, and only cases with notable impact or involving other prominent figures are highlighted. The disputed content is to make readers aware that the judge has voiced opinions on political and legal matters at various forums. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use of edit summaries[edit]

Hi, SheriffIsInTown. Thanks for your edits at Pakistan. Could you please be better about using WP:Edit summaries regularly with your edits, it makes it much harder to follow along when almost none of your edits at the article have a summary. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot After making the initial edits to tidy up references, I initially included summaries. However, I continued without them, assuming others would understand that my edits followed a similar pattern. Moving forward, I will ensure to include summaries with each edit. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And sorry for the "Oops" earlier, when I placed this on your user page instead of here. +1 for taking care of it yourself; I'll self-trout, and make sure I don't do that again. Mathglot (talk) 05:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SheriffIsInTown&oldid=1220669841"