User talk:AbdulQahaar

AbdulQahaar, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi AbdulQahaar! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Samwalton9 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Captain Asfandyar Bukhari Shaheed

Thank you for the article on this Pakistan Amy officer. I only think that the article should better be titled Asfandyar Bukhari Shaheed and Captain Asfandyar Bukhari Shaheed should be the redirect, i.e. just the other way round as it is now. The reasoning for this may become clear if you take a look at the way this is handled in comparable cases: [1] - this shows you the Wikipedia articles starting with "Captain" with titles in italics representing redirects. There are a number of genuine articles with a title of the form "Captain xy" but in most of these cases they are articles about fictional characters. I don't think that this matter would be worth an edit war but I hope you can understand this reasoning. I am open to counter-arguments, though, but the mere fact that the military rank of "Captain" is very often "automatically" combined with the actual name of a person does not justify to include it in an article title, otherwise on would also have to rename many articles to "Dr. xy" as soon as a person achieves this academic degree. --Proofreader (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Proofreader that the title of "Captain" should not be used. See Wikipedia:Article titles for the full information. If there were more than one Asfandyar Bukhari Shaheed on Wikipedia it would be a good idea to use it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Asfandyar Bukhari Shaheed. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the comments on the article talk page?-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:C--Users-Abdullah-Desktop-isf.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:C--Users-Abdullah-Desktop-isf.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 14:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source/license for File:Asfandyar monument.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Asfandyar monument.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 14:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

Hello, I'm Adamgerber80. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to 2015 Camp Badaber attack seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Asfandyar Bukhari ‎. 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. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hi ademberger Quotations must be verifiably attributed, and the wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced. This is referred to as the principle of minimal change. i added a direct quote from dg ispr with reference and you removed it by editing. Isnt this disruptive editing on your part?

Please see the guidelines for quotations. That was not clearly it. I have warned you before about WP:COI. You have to declare this before editing pages. Please be careful. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have read them. this direct quote from dg ispr doesnt violate any wikipedia policy. also i substituted neutral word commanded instead of killed which is considered offensive by muslims. the word commanded does not violate any wikipedia policy as well. I dont know why you are bent upon making edits on this article on things which dont violate any policies. Your other edits havent been challenged by me because you made a fair point even though all of that was authentic as well. as soon as i provide the book as reliable source i will undo them as well. please dont re edit this article on your personal whim. if you consider the word commanded and a direct quote from a certified high official conflict of interest feel free to report me. In that case I shall do the same as you have edited without any valid reason. Dont be pedantic and be reasonable please. also if your views on this matter still differ from me discuss it on this talk page before editing the article again. i sent u a direct copy paste from wikipedia policy page u can do the same as rebuttal instead of sending whole links which in my opinion dont support your point of view. if u want get a neutral editor from another country for arbitration.

Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. elaborate how use of word commanded and a direct authentic quote is COI on my part before editing unreasonably again.

Please discuss anything relevant to the article on the Article Talk page. Using the word killed is not offensive to anyone. If you think otherwise we can involve an administrator. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is considered offensive by muslims as i have repeatedly told you in case of those who are considered shaheed. there is a quranic verse forbidding muslims to use the word killed for those. also how is commanded not neutral? what is wrong with the direct quote? involve an administrator if you wont let it go. Surah Al Baqarah verse 154 "And do not say about those who are killed in the way of Allah, "They are dead." Rather, they are alive, but you perceive [it] not." that is why word killed is considered offensive by muslims in this case. i have replaced shaheed and added neutral word commanded but i dont know why u still keep on editing (twice uptill now). compromise is better than dispute pal.

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Asfandyar Bukhari.

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. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:AbdulQahaar reported by User:Adamgerber80 (Result: ). Thank you. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To ensure you are aware: the discussion's result is that you are warned that further disruption by attemptiong to censor the word 'killed' in articles is likely to result in sanctions that could include, but are not limited to, topic bans or blocking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]