User talk:Spasage

See archives at ->> April 2006 Archives, March 2012 Archives, January 2018 Archives Add section below.

Disambiguation link notification for December 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of Indian history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ghauri (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I have fixed it. --Spasage (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

User rights

Hi Spasage, I've granted you the new page reviewer user right as you requested, I've also added pending changes reviewer user right to you account as it may be useful. You might also like to take a look at {{Pending changes reviewer granted}} and {{New Page Reviewer granted}} as they give some concise information on those user rights. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Thanks for granting me rights on new page and pending changes review. --Spasage (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Larisa Litvinova

Um, Larisa Litvinova has been deceased since 1997 and the only external links are in references. Why the problem tags? Can you explain? I will have to remove it bc it is inaccurate to say she is living. Was this a mistake?--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

References of this article are not in English. So, it is very difficult to know if what is written is correct or not. --Spasage (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

But 1.She is not alive, not no need for blp. Tagging a person deceased for 20 years as alive is vandalism 2. To get a general idea of what the sources say, you can use google translate. It's not perfect and in no way should be copied+pasted, but you can figure out 1997 and "cemetery" in the same sentence mean. 3. THERES NO RULE THAT SOURCES HAVE TO BE IN ENGLISH! See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources and Translations and transcriptions. Using Russian-language sources on a Soviet citizen is normal!--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

And the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. I provided 4 sources that said she is deceased, you can use an online translator, a Wikipedia translator volunteer, or a dictionary of your choice to confirm that. You tagged as blp without the slightest evidence to indicate that she is alive, a bogus claim. And there's no rule against having external links in references only, in fact its kind of encouraged.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

If you can verify what is written is correct, I have no issue. I can see that you have already removed tag.

If you think it's 100% false, just install a translator app on your browser, then click the links, have them translated, and you will get a general idea of what the website say and you will see it matches the wikipage (if to lazy to do that, copy+paste text into translator from each website). I can tell you I translated it to the best of my ability and it is correct, sites like airaces and warheros.ru are used as sources in many different language wikis. But if you are going to claim a WWII veteran born in 1918 and is reported to be dead be the entire internet and many books, I any going to need a really good source.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Zapproved

Hi, thanks for your comment on this page. I have included some links to some reasonably notable websites and plan to add more; comparable companies in the industry are also listed, with similar or less content, and similar or fewer links, and don't have a similar banner attached (e.g., Conduent, Recommind) so I'm a little confused why this particular page is flagged. Any clarification is definitely welcome! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwalinsk (talk • contribs) 20:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

All the pages which has similar issues will and should be tagged. This article looks like ad page. Wiki is mostly informational which helps people understand the topic. I am not sure, how notable this company is. It requires a lot of work and improvement. Once, it is improved, tags can be removed. --Spasage (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Review

Hi! My article (California Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement) was reviewed by you, as I was notified. Thank you! Do you have any tips as to how I should improve sourcing? Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKen (talk • contribs) 19:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

This article does not have categories. Put couple of categories to this article. Secondly, add few reference. May be work done and organizational structure. --Spasage (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages

I see you recently accepted a pending change to January 17 that was lacking a source. I looked for a source for this date of death in the Suicide of Rohith Vemula article and it was unsupported by any source there either.

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide. I've gone ahead and un-accepted this edit and backed it out.

Please do not accept additions to day of year pages where no direct source has been provided on that page. The burden to provide sources for additions to these pages is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Great thanks.--Spasage (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing criteria

Spasage, Thanks for your time and effort reviewing new pages, including Sentencia Arbitral de Guadalupe. I think the discussion on the Talk page there was profitable, and reached a mutually satisfying conclusion.

Beyond that article, I do have an issue regarding the use of the {{copy edit}} tag in general, by reviewers who generously donate their time, but who may not be in a position to accurately assess the grammar, spelling, style, or tone of an article on en-wiki due to their non-native ability in English. I'm not sure what the article reviewer standards have to say about this, but in my view, the guideline ought to advise non-native speakers to avoid use of the {{copy edit}} tag, and rely on the other maintenance cleanup tags, where appropriate, instead. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Since it is en wikipeida, so I am assuming that articles should be written in good English. There are many people who re-write articles to meet english language standards. Putting cleanup tag helps to improve an article and by no means discourage anyone to stop editing. --Spasage (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed; absolutely. Was just trying to suggest avoidance of the {{copy edit}} tag by reviewers who might not be up to it, but you do whatever you feel is right to improve the article, as we all do. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. --Spasage (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Spasage. 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:Administrators' guide/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! TonyBallioni (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Thanks.

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Why did you delete this article (Arkavanshi) and in relation to this article I have information that I have a gazette related to the states that confirm this article I have a gazette that is not online but its copy is not being uploaded due to this reason, the thing written about the arkavansh article is true JinSHOCK81 (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit in 'Sanskrit'

What action did you take with my edit? It says: Reverted 1 pending edit by Srdtheking to revision 820649474 by Dbachmann. What does this mean? Please care to tell because this was my first edit. Srdtheking (talk) 09:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Sergey Brin

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sergey_Brin&diff=next&oldid=821493612

Would you mind giving a reason why his highly cited academic work is not worth including and not just reverting without comment? Thank you.

It shows that he was on a good way of obtaining the PhD before he became too busy with Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.12.68.27 (talk) 08:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Can you give reference of statement "... he published a number of papers .. ". I know you gave reference of 2 papers and his area of research. But, reference of above statement will be good. You probably need to change wording slightly to remove or provide reference. Let me know if I have answered your concern.--Spasage (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

DBLP: http://dblp.uni-trier.de/pers/hd/b/Brin:Sergey ACM: https://dl.acm.org/author_page.cfm?id=81100070777 (these links are already in the authority control section of Sergey Brin). The papers I gave there all had DOIs, and VLDB and SIGMOD are tier-1 conferences.

Yes, they seems reliable. --Spasage (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Yolanda Saldívar

Hello. You seemed to accept this edit. What am I missing? Politrukki (talk) 08:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

It has some formatting issues. --Spasage (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I know and I reverted the edit. But why did you accept it? Politrukki (talk) 08:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Dow Jones

Hello Spasage. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Dow Jones, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Check the edit history — A recent edit just removed the redirect. Thank you. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

thanks.--Spasage (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Stock market crashes in India

Hello Spasage. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Stock market crashes in India, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I can clearly identify the subject, a stock market crash is definitely a claim of significance, and the Indian stock market crashing has not been made up in school one day. Thank you. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Spasage, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
• We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

• We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

• ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
• Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Drive Appreciation

		Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For completing over 500 reviews during the 2018 NPP New Year Backlog Drive please accept this Special Edition Barnstar. Thank you for helping out at New Page Patrol! There is still work to do to meet our long term goals, so I hope you will continue your great work. Cheers! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: Thanks.--Spasage (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Reverted Changes??

Hey just a quick question, why did you revert the edits I made on the Swimming page? I am a part of the swimming community and made changes based on both recent news (the article is terribly out of date) and actual, cited knowledge. Mycatisnamedlunameowmeowmeow (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Zaid Ali (February 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Nihlus was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Zaid Ali and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Zaid Ali, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Nihlus 22:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Spasage! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Nihlus 22:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Jacob Zuma

Hi Spasage, why did you revert my Zuma edit? He did resign after being recalled. Fudpukker (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

He has resigned. Search internet or any news website. --Spasage (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Pakistan

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm from WikiProject Pakistan. We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pakistan.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much — or little — you like:

• You can give your input on issues at the project's main discussion page and keep it on your watchlist: Wikipedia talk:Notice board for Pakistan-related topics.
• You can add the project's to do list to your watchlist and help in what interests you.
• You can !vote and work on saving articles that are up for deletion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pakistan.
• Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every Pakistan-related article on Wikipedia.
• Can you code? The automation department uses automated and semi-automated methods to perform batch tasks that would be tedious to do manually.
• Please participate in any of our descendant workgroups that might interest you.
• Add your name in the members' list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan/Members. There's also a user box template which you can put on your user page to identify yourself as a member: {{User WikiProject Pakistan}}

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask me or at the Wikiproject Pakistan noticeboard, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around!

Nomination of Arif Nizami for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arif Nizami 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/Arif Nizami until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Saqib (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Azhar Abbas (journalist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Azhar Abbas (journalist) 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/Azhar Abbas (journalist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Saqib (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Assistance

Hi Spasage, fisrtly thank you so much for considering me for detection. It's a big honour for me. Nextly, the first article you mentioned (Arif Nizami) is a stub and I'll look around on the web to find some more significant facts about him. But besides being a stub, the article's present contents still need to aligned. The article starts by mentioning his former occupation, however, as per WP: Manual of Style, it'd be more sophisticated to start article by mentioning his current occupation. So the article should look like this,

Arif Nizami is founder and editor of Pakistan Today and had formally served as editor for The Nation. He is son of Hameed Nizami, founder of Nawa-i-Waqt, and nephew of Majid Nizami, chief editor and publisher of the same publication group. Arif left The Nation after disagreement with his uncle Majid and subsequently founded Pakistan Today in 2010.

I'll give my review on the other articles soon. Best of luck Amirk94391 (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Amirk94391:thanks. Can you please give feedback for keep in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arif Nizami --Spasage (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• You just asked 27 people to !vote keep on an AfD, it's not clear why you chose them, but you might consider reading WP:CANVASS before doing it again. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Prince of Thieves: these people worked on similar articles. But I do not understand your urge to write my statement all over the place. You could have written on my talk page, if you had issues. --Spasage (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

It's there for other people to read also. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

It is not a secret. But, your pointing this out and writing like this, is very odd.--Spasage (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

It may as well be a secret if you don't point out what you did on the AfD. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

tag

Please look into this article [1] which has more than 20 citations including reliable ones such as Business Recorder, Dawn, Express Tribune, BBC which are leading newspaper dailys. If there are one or two unrealiable sources or there as mentioned in the tags by a user who hasnt replied to on the page's talk page ever since applyinh these tags, the tags should be specifically placed at specific places where the problem lies. To generalise the whole article by placing tags on top of the article affects the credibility of the whole article itself which is unfair (45.116.232.56 (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC))

March 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Saqib (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

See my reply User_talk:Saqib#Articles_of_people_not_notable. --Spasage (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Gulbahar Bano

Hello Spasage,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Gulbahar Bano for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Plan 9 (startup incubator)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Plan 9 (startup incubator). Because you're involved in Pakistani-related articles in recent time so, you're invited to participate to get a thorough consensus. Störm (talk) 07:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello Spasage, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

• ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

• Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

• The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

• While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

• The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Black Kite (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

You should have discussed this with me before putting it on the board. It says "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page." Thanks. --Spasage (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

You need to

read about arguments to avoid at deletion discussions.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I can reply you on the discussion. I know what I am talking about. I have as much right to disagree as you. Thanks. --Spasage (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

When several editors who are far more experienced than you, are requesting/telling you to re-evaluate your workflow and/or notability-standards coupled with your understanding of our guidelines, it may be prudential to give an ear.Anyways, that's wholly your choice but be cautious about the path you thread, for I'm afraid that shall you persist,we'll be soon back to ANI.Best, ~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

My vote in deletions is just one vote, there are others who are voting. But what I see here is aggressive behavior if you disagree with them. Go to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Pakistan and see how editors go after anyone who disagree with them. Last time when I checked wikipedia was about consensus, not aggressive editing which is being done in articles related to Pakistan. If you do not like my vote, there are others who are supporting you, what you are worried about. But attempts to silence people is not good for wikipeida and accusing people of coordination etc, it is simply bad. It seems like you and few other editors are doing this. --Spasage (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban

Per consensus formed here you are topic banned from all deletion discussions (known on en.wiki as "XfD"). The ban can be appealed on WP:AN or WP:ANI in not less than three months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I have also removed your new page reviewer right per the same consensus. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Request re-review of Samoon Ahmad, MD page

Could you possibly review Samoon Ahmad, MD page again? I have developed the page since your deletion notation and addressed initial reference and nobility concerns. Thank-you, MegEng (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@MegEng:, try to establish that he is notable in his area, remove dead links, add some reference which talks about him and his profile. --Spasage (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank-you - I will look into your suggestionsMegEng (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC).

Spasage - you mentioned dead links. I did some reading and wanted to know if any specific links stand out on Samoon Ahmad, MD page? For example, some links go to PDF documents, should I put page number references? In one link, I am forcing the viewer to click on another link once you arrive at the reference page (however I made a notation of this on the reference line). Your talk page is appears very popular so I realize your time is limited - however, any advice you can give would be appreciated. Thank youMegEng (talk) 05:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Article looks good. Biggest concern will continue to be notability. --Spasage (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Bibi Pak Daman

This revert is maybe wrong. The image shows the building in Multan, the article is about the building in Lahore. Its confusing because the name is nearly the same. --Migebert (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

This means image is wrongly labeled. I have remove this from the article. Thanks for pointing it out. --Spasage (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

ARBIPA sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 Kautilya3 (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: What is this? --Spasage (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

This is an alert, that anymore this kind of disruption will result in topic ban or block. Capitals00 (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Rollback abuse

Do this[2] again, and I will ask someone to remove rollback from your account. You are already walking on a thin ice since you got topic banned and your New page reviewer right removed following the ANI complaint.[3] Capitals00 (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

No intention of disruption. Major changes were made, I did not find a lot of justification for the changes. I know the background of this better after reading notice above. Thanks. --Spasage (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Rollback#When to use rollback. Have you read it? You can't revert those edits that you deem as unjustified unless they are vandalism especially when they have been made on the main article. You have rollback and despite you had to be aware of the rollback policy before requesting and abusing rollback, I am still telling you to read the whole guideline page again. If you really know better than you wouldn't be engaging in this WP:IDHT. Capitals00 (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Capitals00: Thanks for pointing it out. I understand it. --Spasage (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Aslam Khan (Pakistani brigadier) into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

It is discussed at User_talk:Kautilya3#Rehmatullah_Khan_and_Aslam_Khan_(Pakistani_brigadier). --Spasage (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Right Bank Outfall Drain for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Right Bank Outfall Drain 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/Right Bank Outfall Drain until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Saqib (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Kulbhushan Jadhav. There is no evidence or universal acceptance of the claim that he was a RAW agent, and for that reason you shouldn't be making this claim at least not when you are trying to present it as a fact. Capitals00 (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)