User talk:Saman Shahid

November 2017

Please stop adding the same name to Aga Khan University - this list is only for people who have demonstrated notability and this is usually evidenced by them having a wikipedia article written about them. Continuing to simply re-add the same content without listening to the objections of other editors can be considered disruptive editing and could lead to you being banned from editing here. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November, 2017

I'm working with AKU and the person who is being added has proven himself to be notable. Evidence link/source is provided here. He'll get his page made in few days. Saman Shahid (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. Then there are two things you should be aware of:

As you are working with AKU you have a conflict of interest and should not be editing the article directly. If you are editing as part of employment or being paid you must disclose this. I will post the relevant links and guidelines below.
You should wait until the person has a wikipedia page and it has been accepted here as being notable (this is not about the person 'proving themselves to be notable' but about them meeting wikipedia's notability guidlines) and then the link can be added after that

Thanks Melcous (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest guidelines

Hello, Saman Shahid. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. Editing for the purpose of advertising or promotion is not permitted. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November, 2017

Firstly, Wikipedia is something that can be used by anyone to add content. I'm adding the content with a source to prove its authenticity!! For your information, I'm not working with AKU directly and not violating any points of conflict of interest! Saman Shahid (talk) 07:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Working with AKU directly" is exactly what violates the conflict of interest policy and is also possibly undisclosed paid editing.~~ Can you clarify whether you are an employee of AKU or are in any way receiving compensation for working with them? Melcous (talk) 07:44, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I misread that as "working with AKU directly" rather than "not working with AKU directly" - but can you still clarify what you meant earlier by saying you are "working with AKU" and what your external relationship with the University or the person whose name you want to add is? Melcous (talk) 07:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November, 2017

I've added the content again. Please first tell me who you are and then I might rethink. Saman Shahid (talk) 07:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'tell me who you are' - I'm someone who has been editing here for a few years, and I have pointed you clearly to policies of this community and asked you to abide by them, as you agreed to do when you signed up to edit here. Wikipedia works by consensus and you are adding this content against the community consensus, and it appears also against the conflict of interest policy. If you re-add it without explaining yourself further, you may be reported to the administrators. Melcous (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November, 2017

Well, I did my internship there. I am not being paid and I don't know this person at all! This should be enough for you. How do I violate when I am providing evidence and source. I've added it again. Please first explain yourself or else this will continue!

Saman Shahid (talk) 09:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I have explained multiple times, notability means something specific here on wikipedia, and lists of notable alumni should generally include those who have had that demonstrated by having a wikipedia article. There is no rush to add the name, if as you say an article is being created, and it establishes notability, then the name can be added then. Persisting to add it now when you do have an external relationship with the University is not helpful. Furthermore the reference you have included is a primary rather than secondary source - see WP:RS for more information. What is the rush, why are you not willing to wait until notability has been established? Melcous (talk) 12:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Aga Khan University.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Melcous (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November, 2017

Well, yes it has to be done as soon as possible. Moreover, a Wikipedia page on someone takes time; information and data has to be gathered to make it authentic! You still couldn't explain YOURSELF! Saman Shahid (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November, 2017

It can't become disruptive if a random editor has issues with it without any logical reason. A person who has performed notably has no necessity to have a Wikipedia page to have his name under the notable alumni to begin with. However, his page is still in process and as mentioned again and again, it will take few days. Moreover, source is being provided with his description to prove the authenticity. Saman Shahid (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Okay, let me spell out for you one more time all the logical reasons why I have, again, reverted your edit, with links to the relevant wikipedia policies and guidelines:

You have acknowledged that you have some kind of external relationship with the University. Although it is not entirely clear to me from your explanations what this is, it is thus possible that you have a conflict of interest, in which case you are strongly discouraged from editing the article at all
You have added the name and then been reverted. WP:BRD asks you to then discuss your edit on the talk page and seek consensus with other editors, before making the same change again, which you have not done
The person whose name you have continually added has not been clearly shown to be notable in order to be included in the list
The source you have included to demonstrate notability does not meet WP:RS as it is a primary rather than secondary source
You have repeatedly added an external link inline to the article, which is not acceptable
You keep saying that an article is being written on this person and I have asked you to wait until that has been added and notability established before re-adding the name. There is no rush on wikipedia, we are building an encyclopedia that will last for many years, and so your insistence on having the name added immediately just seems to add to the appearance that have you have some reason for wanting to promote this person.
You continue to say that I have given no reason or explanation for my edits, when I have clearly done so in each edit summary and here on your talk page, while you have not used the edit summary, which seems like you are refusing to listen

I am asking you one final time to please stop edit warring. Thank you, Melcous (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November, 2017

You're the only one editor who has a problem!! When I said I don't know the person, didn't you get it? To be honest, I cannot see anything logical in your reply and I will add the person again with the source which is enough to justify what he's been doing and how 'notable' he is. Period. Saman Shahid (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, sorry saying "I can't see anything logical in your reply" is not good enough - I have pointed you to clear wikipedia guidelines, the onus is now on you to explain how your edit doesn't violate them. Melcous (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Rizwan Sohail

The article Rizwan Sohail has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Melcous (talk) 10:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]