User talk:Mabdul

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/National CV

Hello Mabdul I see that you have removed the reference (to The National CV Group of Britain's website), but the reference is only to an example of a National CV, the sole one known at present. The group comprises 30 historians, part of a UK national schools history project.I don't know of any other reference. Is the article acceptable as it is without the reference? If so, then that is fine. With every best wish John E Hart — Preceding unsigned comment added by John E Hart (talk • contribs) 12:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry? As you can see here, I only fixed the markup of the submission - it still lacks (and lacked before) an independent source! mabdul 17:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zishan Engineers

I can let you know why an admin removed content from the page. The content was removed since it contained explanation of how design engineering in Pakistan has been affected by govermental policies and how it affected the job scope of such a company. The admin < Beagel> felt that this was redundant and omitted it. Mecheng761 (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you let me know which two admins have reported minor differences? The reason why this article was initially Afd was due to being unable to establish notability. The article I have posted and the one that was AfD has a huge difference. I found three articles in newspapers which talk about this organization.

If you go on my talk page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mecheng761/Zishan_Engineers . You would notice that Admin Beagel has left comments that this is now a notable organization due to the news paper refences and deserves an article. I think it would be better if this is reviewed by Admins who had initially Afd the article and can see if there concerns have been addressed. Please let me know Mecheng761 (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Just for clarification – I am not admin (and have no intention to become). However, I was the person who made the first AfD nomination. The main reason this time was lack of notability. I think that this issue is resolved as quite recently there has been sufficient media coverage about this company. Another reason for nominating for deletion (which was not added to the discussion) was promotional tone and violation of WP:NOT by the original creator of this article. As of today, this issue is also resolved by extensive copy-editing and removal of promotional pieces. I can't agree that there are only minor differences. You may compare yourself the current version with the version which was nominated for deletion (compared to the first nomination and compared to the second nomination). For these reasons, I support submission of this page. Beagel (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/World Engineering Xchange

Hello Mabdul,

I have added a citation for the information posted on our cite. The article still needs more information, but please let me know if the citing is correct.

Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.77.171.30 (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what I have to say now. I "fixed" the markup of the reference (read WP:REFB), but it still needs another kind of references: newscoverage! (read the short WP:42 page) Regards, mabdul 14:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tom Verri

I have scanned newspaper articles of Tom Verri how do I get them to you?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exclusivewiki (talk • contribs) 20:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to send them to anybody (although it might help in the reviewing process). Send me a mail over this link Special:EmailUser/Mabdul and I will respond to you so that you can send me a mail. Please read also WP:REFB to understand how we style the information. Regards, mabdul 14:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/EYC Ltd

Mabdul can you suggest which bits need third party citations. I included them where i thought there might be controversy but clearly I missed some. If you can suggest what needs coroboration I will source it as it is all available.

Many thanks

PS Apologies fro not logging in but I may work with eitehr EYC or their competitor dunnhumby one day and would not wish to be seen as having been involved with whichever I do not work with simply because I have researched them a bit and shared what I founf with wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.118.100 (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, it appears that the article does not have any sources. All information in Wikipedia articles needs to be verifiable in reliable third party sources. Reliable sources include newspaper articles, magazines, book, or other media released by an organization with a strong reputation for fact checking. If you can't verify information in the article, then it is considered original research, and it should be removed. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/School Of Technology,Gandhinagar

Mr. Mabdul,

I want to tell you that the article is completely genuine.This is the article about one world class engineering institutionItalic text located in the prime area of Gujarat.

You can see the notability of article at UGC(university grants comission) website,the highest body of higher education in India. And i have placed the link for that. I strongly emphasize you see in this regard, because the students at 10 and 10+2 level in India are taking admission in this institute.It is one of the finest colleges in gujarat for engineering education. and the college is guided by the great industrialist Mukesh Ambani. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajeevsingh007 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Huch? I declined your article because of lacking reliable and independent references, not notability (that was somebody else). Please, at the moment this article lacks completely reliable, independent, 3rd party references! Keep in mind that every fact/claim has to be verifiable by the reader through references! Regards, mabdul 14:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

'Summaries' tab on wiki-courses

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Ambassadors

Hi Madbul. I've removed 'Summaries' as a standard tab, since its purpose was not described, and the vast majority of classes were not using it. Something like this could be added for classes that want it, though.--Pharos (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Lynx

Hello! I'm now trying to improve Lynx (web browser) article in order to send it to WP:GAN. Your previous experience with Arena (web browser) would probably be very valuable in this case, so I would ask you to get involved with Lynx's referencing and other WP:GAN-related tasks if your time and scope of interest allow you. Thanks in advance. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Addshore/Sandbox

Hello Mabdul. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Addshore/Sandbox, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I don't see any reason to delete an empty user sandbox unless the user requests it - I have one myself which is often empty, and though this user hasn't been very active lately, he did edit today. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If I use the CSD tab of TWINKLE, it shows me: "G7: Author requests deletion, or author blanked" - and the G criteria are in all namespaces valid... mabdul 03:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

But yeah, you might be correct that I shouldn't check the userspacedrafts of others people ;) I have enough stuff to do... mabdul 03:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think you can assume that if a user wants one of his own user pages deleted he would {{db-u1}} it rather than just blanking. I use my sandbox as a scratchpad, using "Show preview", then copy the result out: if I ever press "Save page" it's usually by mistake. Cheers, JohnCD (talk)

DYK nomination of Teambox

Hello! Your submission of Teambox at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Pgallert (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

How to add license info about logo to web-page

Hello, Mabdul!

I want to upload logo to the D (programming language) page from the official site (dlogo.png). Currently the site have no license on it's contents. Copyright holder (Walter Bright) was nice and allowed me to modify html-sources to add license at my choice for the logo.
So, my questions are:
1. I've stopped on the CC-SA-BY 3.0, but not sure if it's a good fit (I'm really new to legal stuff). I think requirements are:

• Walter should be able to change license any time later
• Free (as in beer and freedom) use, modification and redistribution for everyone, no matter commercial or free work (here I'm not sure if ShareAlike part will create unnecessary restrictions )
• Preferably there should be no visual changes to the page (CC logo or text at the bottom).

2. Where do I add license, how should it look like ? Should it be smth like

<!-- Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike -->
<img id="logo" ...>
<!--/ Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike -->

Note, that license should apply to the logo only, not texts and articles.

I'm really lost here, any advise would be much appreciated! --Alexander N. Malakhov (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, there are multiple ways we can upload the logo:

• as you guess as a valid WP:FAIRUSE image for the D article (nothing have to be changed on his page; enwp compatible)
• CC-BY-SA (click that link; Wikimedia Commons compatible)
• a even (in this case) better choice might be the GFDL (because of "All derivative works must be licensed under the same license."; commons compatible)
• a 4th variant would be the duallicense of GFDL and CC-BY-SA (commons compatible)
• and another solution (I'm a fan of such stuff): BSD licenses (commons compatible)
• Keep in mind: although he releases an image under any license (and except of the CC-0/public domain licenses) he is still the copyright holder and can change the licenses - that is the reason why Wikipedia changed it's license a few years ago!

The notice can be placed in different ways, either in any extra page (like the terms of use), in html code, or even in the EXIF data of the image! (All variants should mention that only the logo is implied for this)

Regards, mabdul 03:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Lincoln University School of Law, 1938 - 1955

To the Reviewer: While I appreciate your effort in reviewing the article, I must disagree with your implied suggestion to expand on the topic within the article on Lincoln University of Missouri. The history of the School of Law entailed many factual matters pointing ti its "separateness" from Lincoln University of Missouri: it was in a separate location; it was created at a date much later than the mother institution, it was a professional school whereas the university offered baccalaureate degrees only,it was created during the Jim Crow era in order to avoid integration of the White and Black races, and it ceased to exist at about the time of Brown v. Board of Education. At a minimum, the foregoing give the article noteworthy status which entitles the article for unqualified acceptance as an article in Wikipedia. So, my opinion is that you are incorrect and I reassert that this submission be accepted as a article. I respectfully request that the article be accepted and that you respond to both these comments and my request. Slidhome (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Huch? I hadn't done anything on this page (until now - i tagged the page with the template ibid)... but after a short check on your submission and I believe that User:Nolelover (the reviewer) did decline this draft correctly, because you didn't include any third party, independent, and reliable source (like newscoverage). mabdul 15:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh I see, I was notifying you since Nolelover missed to place that message on your talkpage. mabdul 16:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Isa_Vandi

Dear Mabdul Thank you so much for reviewing my article. Now that it has been accepted, what shall I do next? and I also received a note that there was a problem with the picture I had uploaded, how can I fix that? --M.Kafi (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Your Uninvited changes to my talk page

It's my fucking talk page. If I wanted an archive, I would have made one myself. Keep your damn hands off. Kinston eagle (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Uninvited? So why do you remove then the {{archiveme}} template at the top since October 2011? Please read also WP:UP#OWN - you don't own this page! If you read Help:Archiving a talk page, you will notice following notice:

The talk page guidelines suggest archiving when the talk page exceeds 50 KB or has more than 10 main topics. However, when to archive, and what may be the optimal length for a talk page, are subjective decisions that should be adapted to each case. For example, ongoing discussions and nearby sections they reference should generally be kept intact.

So, why not archiving it (also a user requested that in October 2011! mabdul 16:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, these are all suggestions. The template says "please consider" archiving it, not "please archive it immediately." Talk page guidelines say the same thing..."suggest." None of these are reasons to start going around and archive other people's talk pages without their permission. only (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Per the User talk page guidelines, users do not own their user pages or their user talk pages. While it is considered a courtesy, there is no requirement for other users to ask for permission before making an edit. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Not erasing some other person's request for me to consider archiving my talk page within some arbitrary time period is now an invitation for a third party to come and vandalize my page? Your logic is twisted. Kinston eagle (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Kinston eagle, you need to reread the vandalism policy. Simply archiving a talk page is not vandalism. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Archiving

Can I ask on what grounds you're archiving other people's talk pages? I see no place where this is asked for by these users, and no policy/discussion that suggests we should be archiving people's talk pages for them. only (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

See my comment above. mabdul 16:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

All of the talk pages he archived were in Category:Archive requests. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

CSD File:Webclock.png

Hi I had nominated the file for speedy because it had improper license. I agree that the FUR covers the use of WebClock screen shot but it does not cover the use of IE to obtain the screen shot. Microsoft does not allow screen shots that contain third-party content. I am listing it for regular FFD if you have any concern, you can comment there. Sumanch (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

German source check request

Hi Mabdul, per this discussion on my talk page, I was wondering if you had time to take a look at this google news search and see if any of the sources are reliable and third party. I would go over them myself, but the sources are in German. Thank you, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)