User talk:Justice007/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Saeed Aasi may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"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:

• http://www.saeedaasi.com/enu/intro.php |title=Biography |publisher=saeedaasi.com|deadurl=no}}</ref>) is a journalist, columnist, poet, writer, trade union leader and a social worker]. Currently he is working as deputy editor in daily [[Nawa-i-Waqt]]<ref name=work>{{cite web |url=

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Saeed Aasi

I just feel you might have some personal issues with the article; why are you deleting the contents everything is provided with references and have valid links. Please stop playing around. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahidaasi (talk • contribs) 13:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Please do not teach me, you are breaching the wiki-rules, some times as IP addresses and sometimes sock puppetry, you are adding the WP:Original research and WP:Promotional content without citing WP:Reliable sources. What you are providing links of Youtube, daily Motion, and subject's own website that are not the reliable sources. I warn you, stop adding original research content, if you remain reverting good faith edits, you will be blocked from editing. I hope this helps. Justice007 (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not teaching you but you are showing your personal hate and referring the contents to Unreliable. The videos on YouTube and daily motion are not uploaded by me or the subject. And apart from personal website the link of Daily Nawa-i-Waqt is provided which is more than enough as a reliable source if you just Google the name Saeed Aasi you will find dozens of reliable links. And there is not a single word which seems like any promotion I'm not selling any product here so open your eyes and if you still not willing to accept the fact just mention your real name and I will send you full authentic and reliable source which you can never deny. Shahidaasi (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

External links

Dear Justice007!

I am Fahim chouhdry from Iqbal Academy Pakistan, official institution from Pakistan for Allama Muhammad Iqbal. I added three external links on Muhammad Iqbal article of wikipedia which are official pages related to Muhammad Iqbal, but you have deleted these page. I just want to know the reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fahimchouhdry (talk • contribs) 20:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• I gave the reason reverting external links, there is no any new information and article has aready official website and government's Iqbal website is also in the references section. Please take a look at Wikipedia:External links. I hope this helps. Justice007 (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Fawad Khan article

Hey! when you clean up the article in terms of unreliable sources can you let me know? I want to find reliable sources for the information that has unreliable sources and might be removed. Thanks!! Kazmia92 (talk) 06:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

October 2014 Wikification Drive

This message was delivered on behalf of WikiProject Wikify. To stop receiving messages from WikiProject Wikify, remove your name from the recipients page. -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Saba Qamar, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Aina and Dastaan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Jinnah

There is very little evidence of substance, from neutral observers, and not pro-Hindutva (political hinduism, anti-secularism) extreme religious nationalists, that Jinnah advocated for Pakistan because Gandhi supported non-violent resistance, but that he left congress, and dominated the Muslim league, because he and his partisans felt, not a fact, but felt, that the Gandhi was not serious in addressing the grievances of Indian Muslims in a comprehensive manner.

Regarding misleading, I feel that adding in detail on the Kashmir conflict being caused by a lack of referendum is neutral. It doesnt support any claim of Pakistan or India, but states that a referendum, conducted by international observers was not carried out as it was in Balochistan and NWFP (Pashtun province) and that this lack of election has led to a sovereign dispute. I can not see how it might be construed as misleading or compromises WP:NPOV. The references regarding what I have put on the Kashmir Conflict, is then further vindicated in the article of Kashmir itself and a UN resolution which argues for an agreed solution to the conflict entailing the right to self-determination. (Wiki id2(talk) 21:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC))

Your unsourced edits are already reverted by another editor, it is a kind of consensus, the article is a featured article that you have to keep in you mind and it is edited by most experienced editors. I hope this helps. Justice007 (talk) 06:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Wiki id2, things get a little strict once an article becomes FA. Try sorting it out on talk page and listing all your sources. I went thorugh that edit (and if I'm not forgetting), you were trying to put it as the view of muslims ie. being aggrieved and not properly represented (which I think was the actual reason too and needs to be addressed).. stating that so and so party holds such view is not POV in itself so hopefully sourcing it will resolve this. Take your time and back them up with WP:RS as even if you are right that still needs to be done. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Justice007. You have new messages at TopGun's talk page.
Message added 15:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

CSD tag removal

Hi Justice007 - I restored the CSD tag to Ayeza Khan for two reasons. First, you removed it noting that the CSD was contested, yet no one but the creator has done so and therefore the CSD tag is still valid. Secondly, you nominated it for TfD as a template, which doesn't make sense. Ultimately there is no reason why a second AfD needs to occur when the last one was closed just three days ago unless an editor other than the creator contests the CSD. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It went wrong automatically, yes I was using Twinkle and happened wrong click, anyhow as I remember, if there is no changing in the rule, creator can contest and by anyone tag can be removed. Now it is ok, no problem. Justice007 (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Were you using Twinkle or something? Maybe it was just a misclick. Anyway, anyone other than the creator can contest the deletion of the article through the removal of the CSD tag. As it stands the creator is the only person to have contested it, so there is no need to remove it. Another admin will come along and take a look and decide whether it meets CSD G4 criteria soon enough. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The rule states, "The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so." Justice007 (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand the policy; I've worked at CSD for years as an admin. No one other than the creator is contesting the CSD tag so there is no reason to remove it and fire up another deletion discussion when the last one closed 72 hours ago and no other editor is contesting the speedy. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

OK. Justice007 (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mujeeb Rahman Hussaini may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"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:

• '''Hafiz Mujeeb Rahman Chandio Hussaini''' born 10 January 1999 in [[Larkana]]) is a [[Pakistan]]i who has travelled widely as a [[Naat Khawan]] (reciter of ''[[naat]]'').

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Malala Yousafzai may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"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:

• yusufzai.shtml | accessdate = 11 October 2013}}</ref> ''Malālah Yūsafzay'', born 12 July 1997)<ref name="Class dismissed"/> is a [[Pakistan]]i [[Activism|activist]] for [[female education]] and
• that the [[Parliament of Canada]] confer [[Honorary Canadian citizenship]] upon Yousafzai.<ref>">{{cite news| author = Canadian Press| title = Malala Yousafzai Receiving Honorary Canadian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Malala Yousafzai may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"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:

• 2012/10/121009_ns_malala_yusufzai.shtml | accessdate = 11 October 2013}}</ref> born 12 July 1997)<ref>{{Cite video | title = ‏امنسټي انټرنېشنل پر ملاله یوسفزۍ برید وغانده | date = 18 October 2012 |
• that the [[Parliament of Canada]] confer [[Honorary Canadian citizenship]] upon Yousafzai.<ref>">{{cite news| author = Canadian Press| title = Malala Yousafzai Receiving Honorary Canadian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Question about WP:INDICSCRIPTS

I've posted a query here as now I think the information about that consensus is not complete to me. It might be a good idea to wait and clarify further before running a campaign on removing (or adding) scripts to articles. As there are two issues, 1) that consensus might have been about Indic scripts and not urdu scripts (see my talk; Urdu is not Indic, it's persio arabic), 2) if it did include Urdu scripts, it was achieved at a WP India page and would only affect WP India only articles and not the wider community or WP Pak, IMO. See my talk page for further discussion. Don't want you to redo / undo same edits later :) --lTopGunl (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok lets see.Justice007 (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I thank both User:TopGun and User:Justice007 for bringing this issue up. I have personally found it really confusing that some members of WikiProject India decided to enact this guideline, especially since many articles associated with WikiProject India overlap with other WikiProjects, such as WikiProject Pakistan, WikiProject Afghanistan, etc. I am thankful to User:RegentsPark for clarifying that as of now, articles associated with WikiProject India can allow scripts for geography related articles. However, I do think that it would be a good idea to bring this topic up again at WikiProject India or elsewhere. I don't think it is appropriate for one WikiProject to make a policy about scripts different than that of the wider Wikipedia Community. I hope this helps and I will let both of you know when I have the time to start such a discussion. With regards, Anupam^Talk 05:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is valid point, it needs to be discussed again, I hope the consensus will be on one line for each project application.Justice007 (talk) 08:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, you are right about the application of the scripts and I found it a useful for articles to have native name along with English and the translation. Somethings actually are enacted (or more accurately the discussion was hosted on the project page; consensus was still there) by wikiprojects as they host a lot of editors that mainly edit in the topic area (hence the existence of the project). So as for the consensus of that project only covers the project's own scope, it is not counter productive to the rest of the community. I further clarified this on my talkpage with a few administrators and uninvolved editors - this does not apply to Indian topics that overlap Pakistan as they do not just come under WP India. So, the decision of WP India is not really affecting the wider community. You can still use native scripts elsewhere. If you would like to revise the consensus on WP India, I suggest that you challenge that consensus only (but keep in mind WP:SNOW if you don't think much hasn't changed yet) as in case of rest of the projects we do not need to fix what is not broken (given that we are already using scripts). If I was more active at the time of that discussion I would have opposed the removal though. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

TopGun, I am also not much active on wikipedia, I have much more matters and things to do in my real life. I was even not aware of the discussion and outcome of it. Anyhow, wiki-rules should be clear and on one line for all projects, otherwise editors will remain in state of confusion and it is not good for the editors, one remains adding and other reverting, it is the waste of the time. Indic scripts transliteration are important for the related subject's part of the area, but transliteration should be only in a national language, not in the regional languages., because that make the lead awkward with many scripts. We are editing all articles, not only project, Pakistan and India. I hope there will be any step to re-consensus the issue in exact concept of the wiki-rule for all project, not the one for this and other for that, it will be considered "discrimination" towards different scripts within its scope.Justice007 (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you on that. I'm concerned about the same multitude of editors over running the consensus for Pakistan related projects as well (an already under resourced project with few but prolific editors) instead of getting their own reformed. So if this is to be raised again, it shouldn't be anything less than a wiki wide consensus from village pump. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I am looking forward Anupam, he may initiate to reopen the discussion in a wide scale. I hope we will reach a positive solution in the consensus way.Justice007 (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!!!

Wilhelmina Will has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween! '"On Psych, A USA Network TV series Episode 8, The Tao of Gus, Season 6, Shawn refers to pumpkins as "Halloween Apples" because he thinks all round fruits are a type of apple. If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

Cheers! "We could read for-EVER; reading round the wiki!" (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks dear, same to you too. Justice007 (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: October 2014

Hello, Justice007. You have new messages at Johnmoor's talk page.
Message added 23:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Justice007. You have new messages at Johnmoor's talk page.
Message added 12:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Edit-warring with Johnmoor

Edit-warring with him won't solve any problems. Maybe it's time to write up a WP:COIN case to address his continuing problems, or do you have another approach you'd like to try first? --Ronz (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The last COIN case started by you is not closed yet — Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 68#Editor Johnmoor. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Ronz, I did my best, I am sorry I can't discuss with who has not capability to understand the rules in its exact concept of meaning, referring rules mindlessly, and remains reverting and violating to reach a consensus, I do really keep this proverb in my mind that "Casting Pearls Before the Swine", it is also a bonus song by Yngwie Malmsteen. I now keep away myself from that discussion and editing. Cheers. Justice007 (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate all your help and patience. --Ronz (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

iERA

Dear Justice007, I hope you are well. Another editor (RookTaker) and I are feeling a bit frustrated that our efforts to keep the iERA article neutral, balanced and reliable are being thwarted by an anonymous editor who changes his editor name (sometimes to mimic ours) and seems to want to whitewash the article. I don't have an view as to whether iERA is good or bad, but it is a controversial entity. That's not just my opinion. Neutral and reliable sources show that. Hiding the controversial nature of this entity will therefore prevent an accurate account being presented. I'm not out to paint the iERA as despicable. I truly don't have an axe to grind. I don't believe that RookTaker has either. Can you please take a look at the article and the edit history and see what you think? Thanks and regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at Imran Khan

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

• Hello Justice007. You are now up to three reverts on the infobox at Imran Khan. One more and you will have broken WP:3RR. Please consider one of the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Javed Chaudhry 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:

• on matters of national and international importance.In January 2008, Javed Chaudhry joined ]]Express News (Pakistan)]] as an anchorperson of a political Talk show [[Kal Tak]], in which he analyses current affairs of

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: Proposed deletion of Abdul-Majid Bhurgri

Many thanks for pointing this out. I have just updated the page Abdul-Majid Bhurgri. My colleagues will add more reliable sources soon.Rasool Sarang (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

adding press releases to Marko Stout

It is unclear why you keep on adding press releases to this article. I'm sure you understand that if an article is up for deletion because it is promotional and lacks independent sources, adding another press release is going to make the case weaker, not stronger. I deleted the last press release you added--there was no reason given for this press release to appear as an external link. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Logical Cowboy, it's no problem, I was searching reliable sources in the late night, I found those, didn't access thoroughly, just added to the external links for further assessment. You removed, it's ok.Justice007 (talk) 09:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Why keep removing?

I have been registered with Wikipedia since 2007. Do you believe that I as a post-graduate engineer, lack ability to understand guidelines, regulations, fairness, neutrality to follow?

May I please dare to ask you, as to what actually have you contributed to 'Shaikh Ayaz' - since last you left the following message on its Talk-page section on 30 December 2012 (except removing sourced-material)?

There are a lot of references, later or any other day I will try to work on the article and improve and expand, I hope so.Justice007 (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

it is 13 November 2014, to 'later or any other day - 30 December 2012'!(SarfarazLarkanian 14:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC))

Hi Indusengineer, If you knew the guidelines and rules, you didn't need to leave comments on my talk page, I just removed the content that was not supported citing reliable sources. Other thing, please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. I hope you will use your ability as well for.Justice007 (talk) 08:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It has been fun-fact game for some users on Wikipedia to challenge and remove content (an only thing they believe they are good at). You did not answer my quoted message from you at 'Shaikh Ayaz' talk page - what exactly have you contributed to that page since 2012? (while sitting in Europe you will never be able to improve or expand any Pakistan-related article other than challenging their contents---and both you and I know why - lot of information on Pakistan is not well-documented on internet). You use 'guidelines' to find loopholes to challenge (like you did with this discussion in the end). This is a kind of contribution that anyone would love to perform, over researching for Wikipedia (no offense). SarfarazLarkanian 10:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Unless you are paying Justice, you shouldn't require him for making good on his thoughts for improving an article. You are welcome to do it yourself (with reliable sources; you do not need online sources so feel free to go to a library and bring in print sources if you like as far as you give proper citations. See WP:SOURCEACCESS). Also, it would be great if you could actually leave the links to atleast your talk page in your signature. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Need help

Justice007, can you take a look at recent changes on Tajuddin Muhammad Badruddin? [1] Dazedbythebell (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Ali Haider

Just FYI, I removed this prod. The article was in terrible shape, but Haider is quite notable. His early 90s song "Purani Jeans" was a big hit that had enduring popularity in Pakistani pop culture. He's had other hits as well. I'm doing some work to improve it.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 07:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Invalid Speedy deletions

Hi Justice007,
I have been looking at the edits of Taimurijaz97 for some time and noticed your CSD#A7 notices on Altaf Hussain University, Karachi & Altaf Hussain University, Hyderabad. Unfortunately the template message says "Note that educational institutions are not eligible under this criterion.". I also just saw that they have now been removed by another editor for that reason. Regards, --220 of ^Borg 07:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It was I who removed them. A7 does not apply to schools or universities. All with a real existence are considered notable. The question is whether the two newly founded universities in question do yet have a real existence.

I see a decent reference that defines the situation [2].

At what stage something being planned becomes real enough to have an article is specified roughly at WP:CRYSTAL. I suggest afd. DGG ( talk ) 07:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC) indents added 220 of Borg

So, at least for Hyderabad, construction hasn't even been started? "... announcement of university on Friday, ..."--220 of ^Borg 08:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi 220 of Borg, DIG, that is ok, the template was indeed not valid, anyhow the both subjects are not notable and those even don't exist, it was a just minor news of someone suggesting the establishment of the universities after Altaf Hussain. I do not think that is the reliability of Wikipedia to let create such articles that physically don't exist.Justice007 (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, if they don't exist yet then wp:CRYSTAL should apply perhaps? Other editor is DGG not DIG I think? (Are you sorry you gave Taimurijaz97 a Barnstar now? Their editing is driving me 'nuts'!) --220 of ^Borg 18:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

OMG, hi 220 of Borg, I never gave him barnstar, he just last month created his talk page, all user-boxes are false, he is misleading the wiki-community. Where are the page patrolling editors and admins?. There should be taken action.Justice007 (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry! I never checked the edit history to confirm you made the award, but glad I mentioned it!. I'd say you're entitled to remove it then, and any other bogus awards. Probably just copied someone else's user page. I've seen this copying of other awards etc before, I smell a sockpuppet ducking a block. I suggest that you mention this at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:AN/I). Note user DGG above is an Admin. --220 of ^Borg 20:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I should have checked his user page before.. he simply copied my user page as is probably while he noticed me warning and tracking him, to troll / admire? / mislead... haha! --lTopGunl (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

TopGun, He chose your user page to copy, you know why?!; I think for that subject of area two things are very favourite; to be "Top" with "Gun". Justice007 (talk) 08:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Touche. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

More on Taimurijaz97

This guys 'articles' are looking more bogus all the time! See this search I did. They are just copy/pasting one pages text into another, changing the names & location etc. to create a 'new' page! There are now 9 university pages where the "Main campus extends on 74 Kanals, comprises ..."! WTF???

• I think Lahore Garrison University is where its been copied from as Taimurijaz97 didn't create, and hasn't edited, that page, at least not under that username. (I have suspicions)
• I've given them 2 'final' warnings for removing maintenance templates (especially 'Unreferenced') in less than 10 hours (last ≈75 minutes ago). I'm hours overdue for sleep (UTC+10 here) so I'm going to bed! (For one hours sleep?) Maybe they'll be blocked, again, when I get back! (AGF all gone now! )--220 of ^Borg 20:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Naeem Baig

Read WP:NOTE, WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS. The article has a single source, which is not sufficient for a biography of a living person, and that source does not verify the full text of the article (I've tagged the unverified statements) or satisfactorily establish the notability of the subject. Without more reliable sources that establish notability, the article may be deleted, and unsourced statements may be deleted at any time. —Swpb^talk 19:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Swpb, thanks for referring rules, it is nice to read it again and again. I just know since October 2010, atleast one reliable source establishes the notability. Daily Dawn is a mainstream newspaper, there is an article/review, (written by mtiaz Piracha) that significant covers the subject's work. Over tagging I disagree with you. Please don't take it personal, I don't bother if article resulted deletion. I am neutral and fair.Justice007 (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

If you don't like having rules quoted at you repeatedly, follow them. —Swpb^talk 22:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

December Wikification drive.

Greetings! Just letting you know the December wikification drive has been started. Better late than never. Cheers! :) Heading for the 20's, living in the Wild Wild Wikipedia! (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

History of Indian Subcontinent

Hey, want to get your opinion on this... History of India covers the history of the whole subcontinent while History of Pakistan, History of the Republic of India and History of Bangladesh are country history articles. This is creating some confusion in editors who are trying to split History of Pakistan as well into two articles (the second one being History of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan; it seems to be a good split by WP:MOS to shorten the aritcle though). It has started an editwar at the History of Islamic Republic of Pakistan between keeping it redirected to History of Pakistan and splitting. I think if History of India was moved to History of Indian Subcontinent, it will clarify things alot (because 'India' redirects to the country and not the subcontinent so that is the primary topic and we need to have a single format in both cases) and also keep the historical term "India" in the title in form of "Indian Subcontinent". Kindly comment on the discussion at WT:PAK#History of modern and ancient day Pakistan esp. refer to my third point there. I am thinking of starting an RFC for renaming the page if there are some more views from experienced editors on what to do. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

We need your help

Brother your country needs your help Battle of Chawinda is being attacked by biased pro India editors furthermore the user Occultzone has rallied allot of Indians through canvassing on the Indian editors group page so he has allot of votes for his agenda our only hope TopGun sadly has been trapped by this user and is facing a TBAN check [3] and for what? trying to edit neutrally occult has canvassed admins to block him and it seems to be working please could you spare some time and vote on the battle of chawinda for support of result outcome thank you brother for reading this and if there are any others out there who want justice on wikipedia let them know!!! thanks again. Meanbuggin (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget to check WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Nangparbat OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Merged Sections

Just letting you know that I merged the sections of Biggest Tank battle.. and Result as both are describing the same content. I've removed about the final result of the 1965 War as it is out of context there. Thanks, ƬheStrikeΣagle 17:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Battle of Chawinda. 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 be blocked from editing. 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. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Source misrepresentation and removal of maintenance templates is nothing better either. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion is better

I strongly suggest you stop slapping useless self-detrimental warnings to users and answer the questions raised by us at Talk:Battle of Chawinda. That might prevent you from getting blocked. Thanks, ƬheStrikeΣagle 18:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@Justice007: give vote in RFC heading it will decide. Harassment will be noted by admins. Some users like to follow your other disputes in revenge. Admins will find them. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I have removed that malformed RfC because you did nothing more than falsely claiming me of WP:COI and other unfounded allegations. RFC is for solving content dispute not for escalating drama. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Please let .Justice007 edit again

I'm not involved in the article that caused dissention. But please let Justice007 edit again. In my experience he has been a highly positive Wikipedia editor. Sometimes situations with aggressive or unreasonable editors frustrate even excellent editors so much they can push them to make mistakes. Justice007 is worth reinstating straight away. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

You're comments don't affect the status quo one bit. If the other editors were aggressive and unreasonable, it is they who would be blocked. Not him. ƬheStrikeΣagle 11:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, ƬheStrike. I hope you are well. I was merely offering a view. I'm entitled to do that regardless of whether it brings change. By the way, I wasn't referring to you, or anyone else in particular, when I mentioned difficult editors. Your editor name is unknown to me. I was speaking generically. Have a nice day. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Personally I'm surprised. A member of Wikiproject Pakistan defending another member of the same Wikiproject?! Uninvolved??? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. But I said (in truth): "I'm not involved in the article that caused dissention." George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Gorge has every right to post here....it's better we close this case here.. Thanks, ƬheStrikeΣagle 12:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for threatening to continue edit warring, as you did here. 3RR is not a limit that can be used to one's advantage by gaming the system. You've already reverted three times after I had given blanket warnings on the EWN. Please do not restart your reverting behaviour on the respective article. Go by consensus. Follow dispute resolution in case talk page discussions fail. And do not give threats to edit war. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.   Wifione ^Message 00:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Justice007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This time out helped me take a step back and revaluate the position. Discussion, rather than reverting, is the right way to go Justice007 (talk) 07:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Indeed it is. And discussion of articles should focus on content, not on the editors. Huon (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Do not bait blocked users, his replies to your deliberate specific questions will lead to a 'not them' reply and disrupt his unblock request... let an uninvolved admin handle it - Justice can ofcourse revert me but this is to help him --TopGun
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What about the allegations of COI, harassment, and adding edit warring warnings on talk pages of other editors when they have reverted only once? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC) I don't want to discuss you here, please discuss on the article talk page, it is not a personal affair. I discuss those who follow the rules in exact concept of the meaning. You removed whole section instead of the terms or language style to discuss and reach a consensus. I am blocked for??!!!, while VandVictory blantantly reverted more than 3 times and he is still busy, but he is not blocked, surprise surprise. The good faith editors are being harassed. I will discuss the dispute on the article talk page.I hope this helps.Justice007 (talk) 07:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC) He has reverted only once in last 30 hours. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC) He did without telling, I didn't; just expressed in my comment to do; I am blocked. He is legitimate to revert, I am not, and I fall under edit warring?!. As the policy; 3RR is not a limit that can be used to one's advantage by gaming the system. I hope this opens the way to adopt neutrality.Justice007 (talk) 08:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• No matter how short, the block does not remain preventive once the user has recognized and agreed to discuss at an article's talkpage without reverting and should be removed. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

February 2015 Wikification drive

Greetings! Just spreading a message to the members of WikiProject Wikify that the February drive has been started. Better late than never! Come on, sign up! :) Grinding, grinding, grinding... what are we finding, finding, finding... (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day!!!

Happy Valentine's Day, to you and yours! Cheers, Grinding, grinding, grinding... what are we finding, finding, finding... (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 Wikification drive.

Greetings! Just spreading a message to the members of WikiProject Wikify that the April drive has been started. Come on, sign up! :) One hand on the mouse, one hand on the keyboard... and the feet can do the rest! Hee-hee! (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

File:Chocolate-Easter-Bunny.jpg

All the best! "Carry me down, carry me down; carry me down into the wiki!" (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

A caution

Just as I left a note on AHLM13's page about certain terms, I'm also leaving a caution here. When you raised your concern to AHLM13 about the term "vandalism", you said in part "I am the main edito of this article". That's getting a bit close to WP:OWN territory - nobody owns any given article. I understand the meaning of the phrase, but you need to be careful about how you use the term and absolutely avoid anything that might be close to you trying to say "It's my article, and it will be done my way!". OWN calls it stewardship, and it can be a valuable service to Wikipedia but along with that you need to be open and communicate with other editors. When reverting, consider opening a discussion on the article talk page especially if there seem to be significant style differences. As I said, I understand the meaning of the phrase you used, but there's a lot of other editors who might not and get a wrong impression. Thanks, Ravensfire (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Warning: Violating the three-revert rule

Your recent editing history at Muhammad Iqbal shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- AHLM13 talk 09:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad Iqbal

Please understand that discussion does not take place in edit summaries. You are in danger of engaging in an edit war. Please seek to form a consensus before reverting again. Tiderolls 21:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ravensfire , Tide. I did not mean that I own the article. I briefly told him that I was the main contributor of the article; It does not fall under own the wiki-rule. Maybe there was not the clarity. Iqbal has several titles that are not necessary to add to the info box. The language standard looked like an essay terms or just the flowery language; it is not the encyclopedic language. I appreciate if there are any constructive edits. Justice007 (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Ravensfire and Tide, thanks for having give us some tips. @Justice007, it doesn't matter whether you intended to say that you own the article. If on your behalf there was an IP or newly created account, then he would have been blocked. You're right, Sir Iqbal possess VARIOUS titles, which can't be added, but those 3 should be enough (but SIR might be removed). Moreover, I don't know which essay terms are you talking about, but most of them seem to be encyclopedic. You reverted all edits without reading them, such as reliable sources and even APPROPRIATE LINKS, like "[[Pakistani people|Pakistani]], [[Indian people|Indian]], [[Bangladeshi people|Bangladeshi]]" . Please use the articles' talk page. With regard to Hanif Tarin's article, could you tell me what does "INDIAN URDU POET" mean? It is same as "AMERICAN BRITISH LANGUAGE POET", which doesn't mean anything. I've just clarified that sentence, but you undid my edit by writing THAT I utilise Uncyclopedic language and I am spoiling the articles everywhere. This is unacceptable. -- AHLM13 talk 15:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad Iqbal

Hi, I saw your comment at Talk:Muhammad Iqbal. Please note that article talk pages are intended to discuss the improvement of the article but are less than ideal to complain about the behaviour of other editors. Please consider to strike or remove this and comment on the content dispute. Thanks :) JimRenge (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

JimRenge, I did not get your point, talk pages are for discussion of all issues, I am not discussing the behaviour, but that comes in the discussion and that leads to compromise towards the improving the article, and reach the consensus. I do not think there is any issue of personal motivation. I hope this helps. Justice007 (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

How you started the section was not helpful - "...engaging in a blatant pattern of Wikistalking articles that I have edited". That's something for the drama boards (WP:ANI), not for an article talk page. Ideally, it should be used for that article and only focus on the edits, not the editor. Don't delete it, but I think starting a new section, focusing ONLY on the edits for that article and explaining why you think one version is better than the other would be more productive. Ravensfire (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Ravensfire. WP:TPYES says: "Comment on content, not on the contributor". His talk page or ANI are better places to discuss his behaviour. JimRenge (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, agree, later I try to focus on concerned issues. Thanks. Justice007 (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)