User talk:Ghizali

Welcome!

Hello, Ghizali, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits has not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. regentspark (comment) 22:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pashtuns may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

of Afghan Council of Great Britain and British Afghan Chamber of Commerce and Industry. <ref>{{Cite news|url=http://a-cgb.co.uk/dr-hotak-elected-as-afghan-council-of-great-britain-chair|title=Dr

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mohammad Hotak

The article Mohammad Hotak has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted 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}} 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. Sundayclose (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Pashtuns. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Ghizali. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Mohammad Hotak, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate 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).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

I strongly suggest you read both WP:RS as well as WP:COI before continuing. Publications and tweets by Hotak are not reliable sources. Look for WP:Secondary sources that are reliable and that assert notability otherwise this article will be deleted.--regentspark (comment) 00:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

response

I have followed all your suggestions and writing about a personality who is a public figure and providing references and citations as suggested by yourself, wikipedia and better sources than most profiles about people on wiki. But it seems like I contineously get the same messages from wiki team. I have do not get paid by anyone or anything else. Just trying to state facts about a public personality with references from recognised organisations, media platforms and other relevant modern day sites.

Read WP:RS so you get an idea about what constitutes a reliable source. Also, you can't use the articles written by Hotak or radio/tv broadcasts made by Hotak. You need to find independent sources - for example newspaper articles - that talk about Hotak and/or review his work. Then base your article using those as sources. The way you're going about it, the article will get deleted and you'll end up getting blocked. All your effort will be pointless. --regentspark (comment) 01:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources about Dr Hotak are from a non-profit organisation where he works alongside ministers, businessmen and the rest. His interviews are evidence of his work and what he does and what he preaches. His education and his work is from his LinkedIn profile and I don't know how else can we reference it because it will not be in a news article or book. And if we can not reference him by work published by entities like Foreign Policy or reputable charitable organisations then I doubt anyone can be referenced. He is not being interviewed by BBC, RT and others for being no body. Finally I am not really sure how else to provide references because if Dr Hotak's profile is deleted then wiki must delete literally every profile from Afghanistan because numerous profiles about people from Afghanistan are not even half as active or known as Dr Hotak.

Please advise on how else to provide references. I watched videos and read articles but seems like you do not agree on the references used so far.

Supposed referencing a statement like 'Dr Hotak is a leader of BACCI' I have provided reference from BACCI official website where it states so. I have provided references from TV interviews which state so. And even link from Khaama news which quotes him as such. How else can I reference this? I would appreciate your support. I felt Dr Hotak is a social entrepreneur and philanthropist working in third world country and his profile will inspire others across the world but if you feel that references are not accurate then I am not sure if I agree because I have done the article based on looking at references on other articles, reading wiki guidelines and watching YouTube videos.

And even if you look at profile of president of Afghanistan, the very first three paragraphs are not even referenced and then referenced with his ted talk. so ted talk can be reference, a BBC or RT interview not be?

For ministers, their ministry sites have been used as references, so why can we not use a charity site for its leadership?

Finally compare this ministers profile references (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_ul-Haq_Ahady) with references I have used for article on Dr Hotak. I hope you understand and accept the references. With time people will add further references and so will I. For now the article has just been published. A lot more will be added.

Here is another article with only ministry website referenced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Zakhilwal, hardly any of them can be compared to Dr Hotak or references I have provided in quality and credibility.

There's nothing wrong with using a minimum number of sources that are close to the subject (Hotak) if they are reliable, but if you want more than a mediocre article about someone with questionable notability, you need a lot more than that. And I understand that you used other articles as a guide (we all have done that), but if someone points out the weaknesses in your sourcing, don't try to justify your weak sources by pointing to problems in other articles. That's the poorest excuse you can use, aside from absolutely no sources. Wikipedia is always a work in progress. It always has bad articles and articles with lots of weaknesses. But simply stating that "there's other crap on Wikipedia" is not the way to bring an article up to acceptable standards. Sundayclose (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great answer. Now I really appreciate this honest reply. There is a lot of crap things and I surely do not want to create more crap. So for now I surely have some very credible references for the article on Hotak and will add more references with time and I am sure a lot of people will add a lot more from their side. This profile is also work in progress just like Wikipedia and will improve with time in the weeks and months to come. I will really appreciate if you could confirm that the article will not be deleted because the article does have legitimate sources, and as you agree, better than some crap articles but I know that is not the standard I will follow but rather try to catch up with highest standards recommended by Wikipedia. As it was my first article, I looked at references on other personalities and tried to do at least a better job than them if not perfect. If you give my article time, references will reach the highest level recommended by you. If my article were to be deleted, it will not be morally justified because worst articles exist but I promise that with time, I and others will improve references to the highest standard. Thank you so much. Have a great time.

The bottom line is that you need reliable secondary sources. Secondary sources are independent of Hotak. For example, you can't say "Hotak is a regular commentator on global affairs" and cite some of his commentaries. Instead, you need to find an independent source that says that he is a regular commentator on global affairs (a reliable newspaper - The Guardian, The Independent, etc. would do). Look for sources that are unconnected with Hotak otherwise, in all likelihood, the article will be deleted. --regentspark (comment) 15:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]