"THE WATCH"

The most important aspect of delivering justice is to deliver the offenders to the justices, so they may defend themselves.

Sheriff ☎ 911
Medals of Honor
This user was honored with a ban on the name of Prophet Muhammad (صلی الله علیہ و آلہ و سلم).
This user was blocked on Pakistan Independence Day.
It would be criminal negligence not to offer you this tasty cupcake for one of the most original ideas for user pages I have come across. Please enjoy! Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 19:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, i appreciate the gesture. Sheriff (report) 19:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Pakistan Barnstar of National Merit
Awarded to you for your tireless efforts and industrious contributions especially to Pakistan-related articles. Thank you and keep up the good work! Faizan (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Faizan, its a surprise for me as i am not sure if i have done anything commendable yet but i will accept it wholeheartedly. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Barnstar of Diligence
I have watched your recent SPIs and your level of scrutiny in amazement which has lived upto your username, with the most recent one being against the prolific sockmaster, Lagoo Sab. Magog was right that admins and even the Arbitrators generally don't want to get involved with a subject with a 10-foot pole... your persistence in tracking down dishonest sockpuppets is much appreciated. I hope you can continue to contribute to wikipedia in the long term by keeping calm and staying content focused when it comes to disputes. lTopGunl (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TopGun: Thank you, all the pleasure is mine but I think all the credit goes to Magog the Ogre for daring to do what nobody else attempted to do. Honestly, I was getting under the impression that maybe admins are under threat or kept hostage by this user. The user is in fact quite a bully and I have seen him bullying admins at ANI so not sure that has anything to do with this or not but again kudos to Magog for doing the right thing and I dedicate this barnstar to him! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
love 2001:569:5205:1800:49C4:C27E:852F:1C77 (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Barnstar of Diligence
Impressive work with Sockpuppet investigation. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Vinegarymass911: Thank you! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Barnstar of Good Humor
Hahaha your signature really made me laugh. LOOOOOL --> 911. Keep it up. VitalPower talk 22:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@VitalPower: Thank you, we all try our best! 😀 Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Technical Barnstar
On constituency wide information update. Great man . Allah bless you. Jawadmdr (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jawadmdr: Ameen and Thank you, just trying my best! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well deserved. Keep up your good work! --Saqib (talk) 08:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Original Barnstar
I thought its long due, you deserve this for all the hard-work you put to improve Pakistani articles. Thanks for your contributions. Störm (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Störm: Damn, I was thinking the same thing about you after seeing your recent edits on Imran Khan but you beat me to it, you are doing a great job yourself, keep it up! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Police Barnstar
For protecting Wikipedia from POV-pushers and for your vigilance in keeping pages pertaining to Pakistani politics vandalism free. Saqib (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib: Seriously, why someone awards me a barnstar exactly when I am thinking doing the same to them, you guys keep beating me on that front.
Thank you though, it means a lot to me at the time when I was thinking that I might be overdoing it and needs to slow down! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Corrections Department

If you happen to come by to file a police report, please leave it in its own drawer in my desk and I will attend to it when I come back from patrol.

Summons

rollback

Hi SheriffIsInTown. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

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:New admin school/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! Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate it. Sheriff (report) 19:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Hi ! I want to be your friend. Ciphers00 (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ciphers00:Thank you, i am not sure, how to properly respond except to thank you for this gesture. :) Sheriff (report) 16:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar?

You gave a barnstar to User:WikiBulova for List of magazines in Karachi. Actually, this article was in its entirety copied and pasted by WikiBUlova from List of magazines in Pakistan... Rescinding the barnstar? Regards, kashmiri TALK 17:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

kashmiri: Please read the message in the barnstar carefully, it was not for List of magazines in Pakistan but rather it was for Sindh, i found his work impressive on that article for a new editor but then i have been having second thoughts as well. At this point, i am sticking to my decision to give him a barnstar because i think every new editor have a room for improvement but who doesn't, even most experienced editors have room for improvement. He needs to work on collecting the sources before adding the information. Sheriff (report) 17:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, your edit summary[1] only mentions that specific article, so maybe I jumped to conclusion too rapidly. Anyhow, just found it slightly curious to see a barnstar on the profile of such a new editor, one with a number of controversial edits. Regards, kashmiri TALK 17:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That barnstar is for new editors as it is named The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar. Sheriff (report) 17:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A 9 months old account with 1600+ edits and you call them a "new editor"? kashmiri TALK 19:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was my judgement when I awarded him that barnstar. Wikipedia is a broad system with a wide range of policies. It takes a lot of time and learning curve to understand and learn them. Everyone is not a fast learner. We should be patient with new editors as they learn and grow themselves instead of harassing them for every mistake they make. That is my personal view, yours could be different. I still consider myself a new editor although I have more than 2,300 edits. I think anyone with less than 2,000 edits should be considered a new editor. You might want to look back at your time when you started editing and then judge others. Sheriff (report) 21:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Thank you Sheriff (report) 01:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetrators turned victims

Mohammad Ashraf Ghani

Information icon Hello, I'm Krzyhorse22. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Krzyhorse22: If you claim that all that information is verifiable through multiple sources in the article then please add those sources to the pertinent information. You know that sources can be added multiple times in an article. Please do not revert me without adding the sources. Sheriff (report) 02:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh

Hi. I'd appreciate it if you would raise any questions beforehand. The oldest archaeologically excavated cities in Bangladesh are from the first millennium BCE, this is not a "rather exceptional claim", its very much a matter of fact. Cheers,--Akbar the Great (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the names of cities in your summary line and I will do some research to find out where the claim in the article stands.
That is how we improve the article, if a source is not there, we ask for one, either you provide one or remove unsourced information and in the end, article gets improved. Thanks for your note. Sheriff (report) 02:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of personal attack

Hey Sheriff, it is not a personal attack, it’s his POV. He expressed an opinion, which I am not supporting or denying. If you disagree feel free to post below it or ask him to remove it but don't remove it yourself. From the policy:"In the event of rudeness or incivility on the part of another editor, it may be appropriate to discuss the offending words with that editor, and to request that editor to change that specific wording. Some care is necessary, however, so as not to further inflame the situation. It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment. Exceptions include to remove obvious trolling or vandalism, or if the comment is on your own user talk page. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor." It is not derogatory. Uncivil maybe but definitely not derogatory. Have a good day. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Vinegarymass911, It's no use discussing with him, if i discuss with him, he further attacks me and insults me so discussing with him is like inviting more incivility towards you. You check out below, how many discussions has taken place between us, you will see baseless accusations from him in each conversation:
1. Diff
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Shams (East Pakistan)
(There were more but i am not including those, don't have time to assemble all of those)
Template:RPA is for these type of situations when the offending editor is not willing to address the issue in a polite and civil manner. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I thought it was unacceptable. Calling some one a POV-pusher in the midst of a heated discussion is one thing, but going to a public notice board and finger pointing at some one is quite extreme. I think Sheriff is within his rights to object to it or to take it to the admins. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vinegarymass911 has a history of questionable edits. But that's something which can be touched later. Kautilya, I expected better from an admin. My post on the WPB talkpage came only after weeks of dealing with Sheriff's continuous removals. Its like he has a dedicated agenda. The way you feel is unfortunate.--Akbar the Great (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Akbar the Great: May almighty help you and give you peace! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The almighty has been very kind to me and has given me peace! As well as the courage to stand up to distortionists like yourself.--Akbar the Great (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You will find me equally courageous enough to verify your distortions as well. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 05:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Akbar the Great: Since, you accused me again of having an agenda. I will like to answer you as to how I got pulled into Bangladesh articles and I will like to ping Kautilya3 and Vinegarymass911 into this since you mentioned them in one of your previous messages and they are entitled to see your good faith towards them as well. Now, let me tell you, how I got pulled into Bangladesh articles. Few months back, I was reading up on something and I saw Bangladesh's population figures, when I checked Bangladesh article, I found them outdated so I updated them and since then Bangladesh was in my watchlist. Few weeks ago when I saw your extensive shifting of text on that page, I started evaluating your edits and a few things struck out so I started checking the sources and found some of stuff not according to the sources so I removed it but you reverted and an edit war ensued. In that questionable text there were links to Al-Badr and Al-Shams, I clicked on Al-Badr, it took me to Al-Badr in Mecca, I clicked on Al-Shams and it took me to a page filled with citation needed tags and only two inaccessible Bengali language sources. Not knowing anything about these entities before, it was natural for me to take it to AFD and by the way that was my first AFD ever. You accused me of political motivation on that AFD and said that you are accusing me because of my userboxes, since I assumed that the page will be kept, I was not checking that discussion regularly so I did not notice your last message but when I checked the discussion after it was closed, I really felt insulted by your message so I replied you here instead since it was kind of related to that topic but instead of taking your words back, your harsh comments towards me continued. How I got to Mukti Bahini? Well, Al-Shams was in my watchlist since AFD and I was curious to verify the sources. There was a mention of rape by Pakistan Army and Al-Shams so I checked the source. The source mentioned Mukti Bahini as well so I went to Mukti Bahini and found it in WP:FANPAGE state and that text not being there. That's how I got into Bangladesh articles, I had no agenda whatsoever, I can swear by anything. I have been wanting to check Bangladesh Liberation War for so many days now but I am afraid for your allegations, my friend. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 06:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's all wonderful, but you still continue to evade the serious content disputes that have arisen in several talk pages. I have dealt with you for three weeks. My dispute with you was not about population figures, but your removal of all mention of 1971 atrocities from the Bangladesh page (except, absurdly, those targeting Hindus). The dispute was not about Al Badr or Al Shams. It was about how you insist on contradicting sources on A K Fazlul Huq and Maulana Bhashani. It was about how you kept removing Bangladesh's role in UN peacekeeping, in spite of sources. You have accused such content of being "anti-Pakistan", "promoting Bangladesh", "against the Pakistani leadership"and other highly ridiculous charges.
My edits are fully supported by reliable sources. It's there for everyone to see.
It's also clear to everyone that your talk page is nothing but a hate festival on me.
And @Kautilya3: you have been nothing but a toothless administrator. Hope you grow some teeth from real life!

--Akbar the Great (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Kautilya3 for mistaking you as an administrator. But you posting hostile personal commentary one someone else's good faith talk page post is also extreme. How unfortunate that even Wikipedia has to endure the bimbo Nawaz-Modi brotherhood. And yes I am fed up of Sheriff removing content on false grounds.--Akbar the Great (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, stop claiming false grounds and address them on the proper talk pages and in proper context without accusing anyone and without straying off the topic and in a civil manner. I didn't evade any content dispute rather I was the one to stop the war and start a talk thread most of the time. I have dealt with you for three weeks as well. Whatever I removed was unsourced at the time of removal or was not supported by sources. Your accusations do not mean anything to me anymore because you have been proven a habitual accuser after accusing Vinegarymass911 and Kautilya3. Bunching together conflicts and edit disputes from different pages and claiming that your position was right and mine was wrong without relative context does not have any value. The edit history is there on those pages with my summary descriptions and yours as well. Talk threads are there as well. I challenged your edits on valid policy grounds and mentioned the reasons in summary lines or on talk pages. I am not sure why you are mentioning the settled matters here, when I challenged Bangladesh's role at UN, it was unsourced, you sourced it and I accepted it. Its called settled matter and it does not warrant mentioning. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 06:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Akbar the GreatKautilya3Sheriff | ☎ 911 Everyone lets put an end to this. Things were said, accusations made, edits reverted and feelings hurt. Lets put it in the past and look forward to cooperation in the future. All of these does not benefit Wikipedia or anyone for that matter. Forgive and Forget. We are free to edit any article we want as long as it adheres to policy. We are all trying to improve Wikipedia. No use crying over spilled milk, whats done is done. To a fresh start. Cheers. PS we could have spent this energy trying to find what happened to Jon Snow. We Must Know-Vinegarymass911 (talk) 06:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Vinegarymass911: I am only at the third episode of Season 2 so I definitely do not know what happened to him. I will send a party after him. :) Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Akbar the Great: pray tell what issues you have with my editing and if you are going to mention me please tag me. I am open to criticism. I have made mistakes I will admit that, but I learn from experience and my mistakes.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 06:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinegarymass911: The only issue i can think of is that you are working on a Bangladesh article but you did not obtain prior authorization from Akbar to do that. You should have asked him if you are allowed to do that. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Akbar the Great: Please do not address Kautilya3 or anyother editor from my talk page anymore, they have their own talk pages, you can address them there or address them from your own.

Coming back 5 days after you left the original message and making it nastier than it was before doesn't make any sense. It’s like you are looking to pick fights. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 05:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your ping

Hello Sheriff,

I saw you pinged me on that new SPI case of Lagoo sab. Thanks. Unfortunately however, I don't really have the time atm (nor the will) to do another dig or, as you asked, to make an in-depth evaluation of the material you posted. To be honest, I feel like its gonna be another attempt in vain, given that the claims are never really taken serious by the admins, allowing him to dodge the bullet over and over. Nor were any concerns taken any serious in the first place. I don't know what more "striking evidence" they'd expect us to post after that last SPI case I filed against him, seriously. Oh well.

Anyway, I just checked some of your evidence briefly. It looks pretty alright. Btw, feel free to take a look at the latter part of the case I filed some time ago. Perhaps there are some diffs that you could use as well. I'm pretty sure the admins were already WP:TL;DR, by that time so they probably didn't even see it (WP:GF assumed).

For example these;

As well as these, for example;

Amongst others. If I happen to have some spare time (and the will), I'll definetely try to leave a comment. Bests and take care - LouisAragon (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case request

Hi, SheriffIsInTown. I noticed you recently filed an arbitration case request. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I was appointed to help manage arbitration pages on behalf of the Committee. (I'm also a clerk over at SPI, but that has no importance here; if you have concerns about my impartiality, please let me know.) It may be a good idea to clarify your statement; I was unable to make sense of your case request; are you requesting ArbCom overturn Bbb23's findings and block Krzyhorse22? In that case, please list (at a bare minimum) those two users, as well as Magog the Ogre (who I see you feel is impartial enough that they can't act as a blocking admin), as parties, and formally notify them of the arbitration case. Thanks. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@L235: I will do that in a little bit. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prophet ﷺ

Yes we all know that the last Prophet sallahahi alahi was sallam was not the founder of Islam. But I have seen amongst Non-Muslim people that they harbour a belief that he was so. As the information is well sourced in the article, it is diffucult to remove. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 09:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright

Copyright problem icon Your addition to Firdous Jamal has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jezebel's Ponyo Can it be attributed to the source? Can we say that the image is copyrighted to so and so or point to the website, i have seen many images on Wikipedia for which licensing information says that the image is copied from the following website! For example, the infobox image at Jeetendra. Sheriff | report | 21:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The image must be free (in the public domain) or appropriately licensed. Images of living persons found on various websites almost never meet the criteria required and such images cannot be claimed under fair use. The Jeetendra image is from bollywoodhungama.com, one of the exceedingly rare websites that do release a selection of their images under a compatible license.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jezebel's Ponyo: How about if I obtain an express permission from the actor? What should the text say from him? Can he just simply say "you are allowed to post it"? Would it be good enough? I will contact him via email to obtain his approval. Sheriff | report | 23:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects: "If you're interested in donating photographs to illustrate your article...you can email photosubmission@wikimedia.org . Please include the photograph in question, along with a statement that you own the copyright on it, and an agreement to release it under a free license. Our recommended license is the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. If you don't own the copyright, please ask the photographer or copyright owner to send in a release instead. The "declaration of consent" may be used if desired."--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can i ask him to email me or he must email to photosubmission@wikimedia.org? Sheriff | report | 23:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright holder needs to confirm the release.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Jezebel's Ponyo, what do you think about screen captures? What if we do not save the actual image but take a screen shot? For example, TechSmith Jing lets you take screen captures and crop them however you want. Let me know about screen captures of human subjects and non-human subjects especially screen captures of data charts or maps? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Screen captures cannot be used to depict living persons. The image has to either be in the public domain, or the appropriate permissions provided by the copyright holder.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ponyo: So does that mean screen captures of non-human subjects especially screen captures of data charts or maps are okay?
Fair use with regard to charts and maps are definitely not my specialty. Perhaps you could ask at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content? As a side note, your ping didn't work as you didn't sign your post.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance that I should have heeded

Advices

Assalamualikum Wrahmatullah Brother. Keya hal hay. I hope fine. I'd like to give just some advice. It will be much better if you remove some of your infoboxes, as you might be in trouble. I had an account and was good contribitor, but then blocked all of my boxes, which were similar to yours have been removed. Admins had a negative thought on me. This is just an advice. Hope that you'll consider this. Fiamanillah. Allah knows best.--78.149.115.204 (talk) 12:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been getting ideas to create some of my userboxes and templates from pages of a few other users and have noticed one of those users were blocked recently, maybe it's you but I am not afraid of anything and would keep portraying myself as I am. I wish there was some leniency on Wikipedia towards good contributers vs. people who just come to vandalize. Sheriff | report | 16:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm genuinely interested - what userboxes do you believe will get someone blocked? I've been an admin for 7-8 years now, and I've never once blocked someone over an infobox. I mean - I suppose yes, I could imagine infoboxes on a userpage that would get someone banned (something like 'this user believes that all people that have a favorite number of 7 are subhuman' or something similar, I guess). Nothing on your userpage as it is right now jumps out at me as inflammatory or otherwise innapropriate? SQLQuery me! 09:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SQL: What I think the original poster was referring was that some admins or other editors on Wikipedia might have islamophobic views or are anti-Pakistan POV and what I understood that he/she was suggesting was that because of that they can hound you until you can get blocked for valid policy reasons may be but you come under extra scrutiny than most other editors would and personally I feel like a lot of people I interacted with on Wikipedia are already looking for an excuse to block me because my opinions differ from them on most of the issues. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were right, people already started accusing me because of my userboxes, it's an easy escape for people to try to win an argument. "oh, he has this userbox on his user page". Akbar the Great, you don't have any right to accuse me all the time because of my userboxes like you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Shams (East Pakistan) (I did not see that before), base your argument on policies of Wikipedia instead of what people's personal preferences are. Almost, every Wikipedia editor who lives in a democratic country supports one or another political party and almost every editor on Wikipedia is a citizen of one country or another, this should not have any bearing on our editing. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you people, you and that IP, trying to promote some sinister agenda here? Because the IP just gave you very bad advice.
Don't imagine things. When did I ever say "oh, he has this userbox on his user page"? I pointed at your userbox only once in that AfD, to illustrate your ridiculous nomination which came after the government you support denied any atrocities in 1971. I personally found that pretty outrageous.--Akbar the Great (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Akbar the Great: Oh, stop with your non-sense accusations already. You are saying that the IP gave me a bad advice to remove userboxes while you made his advice correct by accusing me of political motivation for an AFD because you saw a userbox on my user page which says that I support the political party which is currently in power in Pakistan. The text "oh, he has this userbox on his user page"? was an example of what people like you resort to and it was an essence of what you said on that AFD debate. It was not a ridiculous nomination as I already explained in AFD debate that the page was filled with "citation needed" tags since July 2014 and they must have been around 20. I see people have been adding sources in result of that nomination, I didn't check the page yet but I hope that it is significantly improved than what it was before my nomination. Moreover, I was not aware of Pakistan Government's policy of "genocide denial" which you pointed out, it seems like you are keeping a better tab on Pakistan Government than most Pakistanis are doing.
Again, I will suggest that you stop accusing people and base your arguments on Wikipedia policies like for example I will not accuse you of working for Bangladesh consulate in New Zealand and furthering the agenda of Bangladesh government of Anti-Pakistan POV pushing because that would be totally ridiculous and I have no proof of that and you have no userboxes at your user page on which I can base my accusations although you only work on Bangladesh pages and most of your edits are to promote Bangladesh and accuse Pakistan but since you have no userboxes thus I cannot accuse you of political motivation and POV pushing.
Moreover, I have been seeing your edits since they were less than 200 and your edits and understanding of Wikipedia policies were more sophisticated than me while I had more than 2,000 edits and you do not use summary lines. Based on that it will be preposterous to blame you of being a sockpuppet of a previously blocked user or that you are trying to avoid detection by not using the summary lines. Same way, you should avoid baseless allegations and stick to policy matters.
I will also encourage you to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Single-purpose account if you are not already because your account qualifies the description as it is restricted to Bangladesh articles and focused on promotion of that country while promoting anti-Pakistan POV on those articles. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is BS. You're digging head over heels to personally attack me just because you can't argue based on facts and sources? I have more than 1500 edits. Why do you lie so much and put up a religious icon? What in God's name is your problem? I've edited plenty of stuff, so mine isn't a single purpose account. I edited Bangladesh because there was a definite need for improvement. I didn't know that any enhancement of Bangladesh's coverage gets to some of you Pakistani nationalists so much. My content hasn't been disputed, except by you on flimsy grounds.

I dedicated an entire section on human rights and corruption under the Bangladesh Government, I can't imagine how they would be fond of me.

I have a strong feeling that you're a sockpuppet, or certainly acting at the behest of banned users.

I suggest you stop making personal attacks all the time, stop acting like a partisan editor, stop beating around the bush and start talking to the point. I hope Wikipedia doesn't end up getting hijacked by your lot.--Akbar the Great (talk) 02:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Akbar the Great: I didn't accuse you of anything but you are accusing me over and over again and forgetting that you need to be WP:CIVIL when you are talking to others. You are the one who resorts to personal attacks and you have done so over and over again, you have done so at that AFD, that was personal attack and you have done so over and over again here as well and at Talk:Bangladesh so I suggest you stop that, please. All I have done to hear this crap from you is to challenge your edits on policy grounds at Bangladesh and A. K. Fazlul Huq. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What did I ever accuse you off? Show me proof. The crap you're throwing at me is clearly visible above. In that AfD, I said you were guilty of being politically motivated. I still stand by that. Your unsuccessful nomination came days after the widely reported genocidal denial statement of Pakistan. I don't keep a track of your government. I had to read about it in the front page of my morning paper in Bangladesh. It was also reported around the world, 1, 2, 3 4, 5.
On Sher-e-Bangla, you just don't get it. You also have no idea of who I am. I'll try sorting that out later.--Akbar the Great (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Akbar the Great: To begin, we start with your accusation at AFD of political motivation. What you are implying there is that I knew about "genocidal denial of Pakistan" and that was my motivation to take that page to afd. Let's start with that, I wait for your proof about me knowing about "genocidal denial of Pakistan" and that being the reason.
Now whether it was successful or unsuccessful, I accept the outcome of that AFD and I have no doubt that I followed the proper procedures regarding that. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 05:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What's left to prove there? You acted in the same context as the Pakistani Government. Anyways I'm done here.--Akbar the Great (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Akbar the Great: So, that's your proof that any Pakistani who will challenge an unsourced WP Bangladesh article, you will blame him for association with Pakistani government? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article was sourced and met general notability guidelines. You tried to delete the Wikipedia article on the Al Shams brigade for heaven's sake, a widely reported militia force of 1971. I'm sorry you're so blinded to the right side of history by whatever POV you have.--Akbar the Great (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Akbar the Great: WP:AFD is the process which is used to delete the article and no article gets deleted without consensus, it's a normal deletion process at Wikipedia, any editor can feel that an article meets the criteria for deletion and put it up for that. I felt that, that article met that criteria and submitted it for the process, people thought it does not meet the criteria for deletion and the result was "keep". You have no need to be upset about that and call people POV pushers and blame them for political motivation. You should have trust in policies of Wikipedia and follow them. Getting upset about normal processes of Wikipedia shows that you harbor strong political affiliations and your motives are not to build an encyclopedia but rather they are to further a specific political agenda. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're clearly talking about yourself aren't you. You're the only one here with strong political affiliations and political prejudices.--Akbar the Great (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Akbar the Great: And that's only because I have a userbox on my page which says I am from Pakistan and I prefer to support PML (N) out of all other political parties? You have failed to enlighten me with a valid reason except your empty blames which started when I challenged some of your sourceless edits on Bangladesh, a page which you are owning. Let me tell you boy, this is Wikipedia and not Bangladesh, people from all sorts of backgrounds have a right to work on any article that they want to work on, so whether you welcome me or not, I will keep working on it. Your empty blames cannot stop me. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you keep removing and editing my comments. Please watch your language. I don't have to be a supporter of Bangladesh's government to defend accurate history. But unfortunately, your edits have shown a strong bias towards the attitude of the current Pakistani government, which is the first in history to adopt genocide denial as a policy. Given your justifiably democratic support for this pathetic regime, I have every right to challenge your revisionist distortions.--Akbar the Great (talk) 13:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Akbar the Great: Dude, I only removed those messages in which you personally attacked me, even some of those I did not remove. Please stop restoring them, I have every right to remove them. Once you will start watching your language and learn to talk in civil manner, there will be no need for anyone to remove your comments. Why don't you understand the same thing that I don't have to be a supporter of Pakistan government to check and verify the content in any article including Wikipedia: WikiProject Bangladesh articles. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malik and Zehri

I seem to have gotten ahead of reality. Still, it seems like a done deal. I assume it will be confirmed in the next few days at which point I will want to re-update the pages... unless I am wrong, and we get a surprise challenge. Curro2 (talk) 01:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Curro2: Sure thing, just revert me when change actually happens, there is a process of election which must take place. Sorry for reverting you. I know how upsetting it is when you assemble everything and someone just reverts you in one click. Sheriff | report | 02:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No no no you are right. I jumped the gun. Curro2 (talk) 05:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MIT

You should have received an email from me with a link to a registration form - could you please either complete the form or email me if you did not receive it? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for OUP. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ping. Please respond in the next week if you are still interested in receiving access. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I just submitted the form for MIT, I hope, I still have a chance to get access! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Submitted for OUP as well! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, SheriffIsInTown!

Happy New Year!

SheriffIsInTown,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Kautilya3 (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks)) to user talk pages.
@Kautilya3: Thank you and same to you, it was very thoughtful of you. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 05:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can I take this opportunity to invite you to join WP:INDOPAK? It seems that we are under-represented by Pakistan at the moment. Hopefully, we make progress on some new initiatives in the new year. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad

The Muhammad article is under discretionary sanctions and you have been notified of those sanctions[2]. Edits like this one are very much against an established consensus and are a violation of our neutral point of view policy.

I am imposing a 1 month topic ban against you regarding all pages related to Muhammad broadly construed. Topic bans are explained here. I am keeping this ban short because I hope that you can edit in a neutral fashion in the area in the future. If after this ban expires there are further issues with neutrality in that area the discretionary sanctions allow topic bans up to 1 year in length.

Information about discretionary sanctions can be found here: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions. HighInBC 20:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: It seems like you were very quick to issue a ban against me without even hearing me out and the reason you gave was "[3]. Edits like this one are very much against an established consensus and are a violation of our neutral point of view policy." but you did not explain what was wrong with that edit, it was properly sourced and source almost exactly say what I put in the article. You said it was "against consensus and neutral point of view" but I totally do not understand how? There are almost over 50 edits on that page between my edit series of today and the last time. Nobody discusses and obtains consensus before editing that page then why editors with pro-Islamic views are being demanded of that. It's like saying "either ban yourself from editing or we will ban you". I am really disappointed by this. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the honorific (PBUH) has been discussed to ad infinitum, there is even a notice every time you edit linking to: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Islam-related_articles#Islamic_honorifics. Topics under discretionary sanctions have a long history of disruptive editing and are held to a far higher standard of conduct. It is up to you to understand our neutrality policy. If you don't see how adding "peace be upon him" after his name is an inappropriate tone for an encyclopedia then you may not possess the neutrality required to edit on this topic.
I am not saying "ban yourself or I will", I sincerely hope that after this short ban expires that you will be able to contribute to the topic in a neutral fashion. Some people have accused you of being a single purpose account, you could use this time to show them they are wrong and that you are here to contribute to the encyclopedia as a whole. HighInBC 21:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am going out to a job right now, but I will be back in the evening if you want to discuss this further. HighInBC 21:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, HighInBC, i have been holding off this discussion because I did not review the RFC which discusses these discretionary sanctions because previously I started reading the one on Pakistan-India-Afghanistan and I still couldn't finish it. RFC's are just too long to read but I do plan to read and understand them. As for warnings while doing edits, they do not appear when you do edits from a mobile device but anyway without reviewing the RFC, I still think that adding the honorific like I did cannot call for a ban, since I have the page in my watchlist and I have seen that people are still discussing the matter. Allow me to repeat and this is my point of view as well that as a Muslim editor, it's my obligation to add honorific like I did otherwise whatever was added was sourced and I did not evade any policy while doing so. If it was just the matter of honorific, there were other ways to deal with the issue than a right away ban. I think the editor who started screaming at the talk page overreacted which made you to overreact and rush to ban. You also said people claimed that my account is an SPA, that's that one editor which claimed that but if you look at my edit history and all the pages I have edited are listed at my user page, you will find out that I edit on wide variety of subjects. There was a working consensus going on, on that page, I did adjust my edits after Jeppiz objected to those. I think we should not ban people in haste.
I was waiting to review the RFC before appealing you to reconsider the ban but then I thought by the time I will review the RFC, month will already be over and thinking that I dropped that idea but seeing the conversation developing on that page, I thought I should contact you and request you to reconsider if you think you might have overreacted or acted in a haste. Thank you Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that you have said that it is your obligation to add the honorific. It is a requirement that Wikipedia users edit in a neutral fashion. I respect that your beliefs may obligate you to add the honorific, however it is still not compatible with the goals of Wikipedia. The issue of the honorific has been discussed for about a decade now and the consensus has consistently been against it.

You mentioned other ways to deal with your obligation regarding the honorific, I would love to hear them. If I can be made confident that your edits in the area will be neutral and not unduly influenced by your personal beliefs I can lift the ban. HighInBC 03:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SheriffIsInTown: I'm Muslim too. Have you seen this?VR talk 22:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

your edits in mohenjo-daro

Let me suggest politely that you not use nonsensical third rate sources. All sources are not equal on Wikipedia. Please tell on the Mohenjo-daro talk page why that source is reliable. what is its citation index? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - Fowler has reverted your edits a second time. [4] Curro2 (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Curro2: Not sure, what to do man! I guess, I am going to retire, I have had enough. People have setup their own domains here and they try to push away anybody who tries to improve articles which they think they own. There is someone owning Bangladesh articles and if you go and try to improve any article under that project, they will revert you just because you are Pakistani. Now, here its the case of laziness as well, undo is easy, just one click and who cares if the other person have spent hours researching the material. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 09:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relax buddy! We learn from every dispute situation and get better as editors. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
:) Please don't leave Wikipedia on my account! And I thought you were a Hindu nationalist! The problem is the book you are using, which it turns out is not Hindu nationalist, but still is a somewhat non-mainstream work which uses a mostly religious/mythological text, the Rig Veda, to deduce things that properly belong to the domain of archaeology. The book itself says, "This is the first investigation of its kind and the conclusions of the study are no less original. Besides establishing the rationality of the Rgvedic narratives, it shows the events and their agents to be historical in the light of available archaeological material." In other words, this is not exactly a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. It is the first I have heard that Mohenjo-daro is a Bengali version of a Sindhi word. It is true that one of the early excavators of Mohenjo-daro, Rakhaldas Bannerjee, was Bengali, but it is very unlikely that he would have changed the name to a Bengali name, given that he was working for the British directed Archaeological Survey of (British) India. I encourage you to find better references for the article, but this doesn't seem to be one. No hurt feelings, I hope, and my apologies. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS The reason why I mentioned "Hindu nationalist," is that there is a revisionist trend among some Hindu nationalist Indian historians and archaeologists, who are claiming, on scant evidence, that the Indus civilization was Vedic, that all its artifacts, culture, administrative and political systems are of Vedic Hindu origin, although, as I've said above, your source probably is not saying this. These same very people have been claiming that they've found a new Indus site, and they have found thousands, wherever their foot hits a stone anywhere in India. They seem to be upset that the Indus civilization is mostly in Pakistan. (I'm exaggerating a little, but it is one thing one has to watch out for in all IVC related pages.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: I have heard on a TV channel, a Pakistani presenter saying that the official name "Mohenjo-daro means "Heart pleasing city" while the original name "Moenjo-daro" meant "Mountain of the dead" so i thought let's do some research on that since i had seen some bickering on Mohenjo-daro in the past about the meaning of the name or what spelling should be used. So those two sources were the result of that research. Now i have no idea, who is Hindu nationalist when it comes to the authors as both of them have Hindu names but having a Hindu name does not make someone Hindu nationalist, the book names have words "Rigveda" in them so the author might have written the book from Hinduism perspective but the text that i included in the article does not talk about Hinduism or Hindu nationalism, it merely talks about the meaning of the name which does not hint anywhere about it being from Hinduism perspective. I am for giving the coverage to every perspective and leave to the reader to come to the conclusion. If one writer says that the word means "Mound of the dead" or "The hill of the corpses", the other says "The place with doors" or "The place of doors", we should mention all of them, that's what encyclopedia is about. Why should we favor one meaning over the other. I mean i would be careful if an author is a Hindu nationalist and says "Mohenjo-daro" means "A place with Hindu temples", that would be Hindu nationalism (i might include that one as well just to give greater coverage to the subject though). Here is another one,[1] this one says it means "Mound of the dead", we should source that meaning as well.
And i don't know anything about citation index or how to check it? It would be helpful if you can give me a link to some tool or page describing that. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ L. K. Singh (1 February 2008). Indian Cultural Heritage Perspective For Tourism. Gyan Publishing House. p. 14. ISBN 8182054753.

Here are some reliable IVC sources. If you stick to them, you can't go wrong. You could add them as bibliography to the Mohenjo-daro pge:

best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on finding a good source. I think, though, you might have the ISBN of the E-book (which doesn't have page numbers). Also, it is usually more accurate to give the chapter title and author of the chapter in the author, as Bates et al have only edited the book. If you use the following: Fukao, Junichi (2015), "Cities in India: An archaeological perspective", in Crispin Bates, Minoru Mio (eds) (ed.), Cities in South Asia, Routledge, p. 18, ISBN 978-1-317-56513-0 ((citation)): |editor= has generic name (help), it will give the reader the full information, and, by clicking the book title, will take the reader straight to page 18, where he or she can check for themselves. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: Thanks for your help, I will try to get better on this. :) How did you find the author name? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome. The author's name is right under the chapter title on page 17. (If you are not in the US or Canada, you might not be able to see this.  :) ). Google books allows different degrees of access in different country locations. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine for u!

Sunshine!
Hello SheriffIsInTown! Bhootrina (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding ((subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine)) to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding ((User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon)). Happy editing! Bhootrina (talk) 06:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bhootrina: Not sure, what did I do to get this but thanks for spreading the love! By the way, big cats are my favorite animals too, i think they are the most beautiful mammals on the planet. I like Cheetah the most, it's such a baby-faced animal, very cute. I might add some of those userboxes on my page as well. :) Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additions to page: Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War

I made some well-sourced additions to the page Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War and @MBlaze Lightning removed them and asked me to discuss on Talk page. I raised all my points on the Talk page but he has not responded on Talk despite asking me to and still insists on not letting my additions through.

You can access the Talk page for that article here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rape_during_the_Bangladesh_Liberation_War

I would like you to review my additions and sources and see if you have an issue with it.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TalhaZubairButt: According to WP:CANVASS, I cannot intervene in your favor on that page since I have not made an edit on that page before. If that was not a hindrance I would have loved to do so and I have been thinking to look at that page for long now. I plan to look at it in future but will make my own decision as to when.
I completely understand your frustration about the behavior of some Indian editors, it seems like they are bent on making Wikipedia, a political battleground which is against the essence of building a free encyclopedia and it has been like that for long so someone like you or like myself comes and challenges their authority, they start throwing fits. So, in this case its completely unfair for that editor not to allow your edits and on top of that, not to engage in a discussion. You can reinstate your edit after waiting a reasonable time for him to engage in discussion but if he continues this behavior then you will have to explore other venues. You can serve him WP:3RR if he is to breach that rule or maybe report him to WP:ANI/edit-warring. You can file a case at WP:3O so a third unrelated editor can join in. If you are not satisfied with the result of 3O, you can go to WP:DRN, an informal mediation forum, WP:MEDCOM, a formal mediation forum, next step WP:RFC and finally you can appeal to ARBCOM and I am willing to help you regarding these procedures by staying on the sidelines and not engaging in actual dispute.
There is one way for me to engage in the actual content dispute and that is that we ask MBlaze Lightning to invite one editor of his choice to the dispute, that way you will have an editor of your choice and he would have an editor of his choice.
Finally, my advice to you is that familiarise yourself with policies and do not get blocked. You are doing a very good job. Keep up the good work. I see your content is sourced and balanced but because of the fighty behavior of Wikipedia, you will encounter opposition and last thing we want is to lose a good editor like yourself so keep your cool and calm, don't express your personal feelings towards hot political disputes even if your opponents do and don't get yourself blocked.
Let me know if you want me to ask the other editor to get another editor of his choice then I can fare in that dispute. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 09:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hussain Haqqani

After seeing Hussain Haqqani in your list and being a relatively inexperienced editor, I needed to ask you somethings. I believe there is a portion of the Wikipedia article on Hussain Haqqani which violates the Wikipedia rules and guidelines:

"The Wall Street Journal described Haqqani as "a hostage" while he was in Pakistan and published an interview with him from the Prime Minister's house in which he outlined why he was hated by Pakistan's intelligence services and Jihadi groups.[47] Michel Hirsh, writing in The Atlantic, described Haqqani as "The Last Friendly Pakistani" towards the US[48] Jeffrey Goldberg, writing for The Atlantic and Bloomberg News, has been a consistent supporter of Haqqani, calling him "The Hardest Working Man in Washington" and criticising Pakistan's military and security services[49][50] Simon Tisdall of The Guardian called Haqqani "an instinctive ally of the west" and attributed Memogate to the ambassador's difficult relationship with Pakistan intelligence service.[51]"

Isn`t this portion based on the OPEDs which I believe goes against the wikipedia policies. Can you elaborate on this because I want to remove this section — Preceding unsigned comment added by DelusionMBT (talk • contribs) 18:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DelusionMBT: Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and every editor whether new or old has the same right to edit. You can go ahead and make your edits outlining your reasons in the summary line for those changes if someone objects to your edits then there are processes to deal with that. I am willing to help if you need any help understanding any process or a policy but as I said you don't need mine or anyone else's permission to make an edit which you consider right. Thanks for reaching out though, I appreciate it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear SheriffIsInTown,

Thank you for your response. We definitely need more people like you amongst our midst. Stay blessed don`t loose hope all the best infact people like you are the hope for the majority of Pakistanis. Thumbs up :) DelusionMBT (talk) 08:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1965 Indo-Pak war

I would like to bring to your attention that MBlaze is involved in pushing a rather sinister POV on the Indo-Pak article including removal of sourced content which favors Pakistans claim, he has already removed a lot of content basing his argument that it unreliable simply because its by pakistani sources. Can you please take notice or inform some other editor to take notice? Can MBlaze be nominated for a block for being a POV pusher? Thank youDelusionMBT (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DelusionMBT: I have added Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 to my watchlist. I will see how I can help improve that page in future. It's my policy not to go after other people's edits and I don't check edit history of a page past the point of me adding the page to my watchlist.
Also, I don't seek blocks for other editors until I exhaust all of my options. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed to defend myself against sock puppetry investigation

A sock puppetry investigation was launched by MBlaze against me calling me a sock of TalhaZubairButt (I have no idea who this guy is) after I spoke against him being a POV pushover and demanded a ban on him for being a POV pusher. I believe he has now withdrawn his report against you in the "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions". After I said the following and demanded a ban on MBlaze at Trip Wire talk page as well.

This i what I wrote on the "Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring" 

*I don`t think that Sheriff did anything wrong, this selective justice involving pushing a specific point of view based on nationalistic fervor should have no place on Wikipedia and should end. Alleging that Sheriff is involved in any sorta edit war is laughable, I have been following his edits for quite some time now on issues related to Pakistan, Bangladesh and India especially the level of patience he has shown on the Hussain Haqqani article to accommodate the POV pushers is remarkable. This selective bullying is not only shameful but quite unprofessional as well on part of the Wiki community by a handful nationalist maniacs who don`t have the patience to listen or accommodate the opposition`s point of view no matter how much well sourced it may be.


He has now withdrawn his allegation. Can you please kindly tell me how can I defend myself against him and can we demand a ban on him for being POV push over especially in 1965 war section. Thank you

Here is the link of the ongoing investigation, I hope the poor guy TalhaZubairButt knows about this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TalhaZubairButt — Preceding unsigned comment added by DelusionMBT (talk • contribs) 19:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DelusionMBT: After the SPI results, my advice to you is that you go to the SPI and accept all of your sock-puppets whole-heartedly since it's obvious that being an inexperienced editor you did not know that accounts other than the ones mentioned in SPI can show up as well. Then you should request blocking of all your accounts except one. This way, I am pretty confident that your one account might be allowed to function or you might get a temporary short ban. Don't make a mistake of denying the results because that won't work. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1965". 11 January 2018. Retrieved 9 May 2018 – via Wikipedia.

Bangladesh liberation war

Sherriff, you're a good editor and you do a lot of good work on Wikipedia and I appreciate your efforts to bring balance to Pakistan related articles (especially since Mar4d is gone and TopGun topic banned). But you're moving into dangerous territory with your recent edit on Bangladesh liberation war. I don't have to tell you that there are discretionary sanctions that apply to this article and suggest you self-revert. --regentspark (comment) 17:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: I did not know that discretionary sanctions apply to this article as it's not related to India/Pakistan. I thought Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 came under discretionary sanctions. Also, by looking at WP:ARBIPA, I am unable to understand how my edit is in violation of the principles set there-in and how it does not apply to everyone else involved in this quarry. I am willing to self-revert after understanding the violation. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
India was involved in the BLA, therefore this is covered by the sanctions. I'm referring specifically to the 'disruptive editing' clause below. Your last revert is easily construable as disruptive. I have no desire to protect the page because I do think mostly everyone is editing in good faith but will do that if you don't self-revert. --regentspark (comment) 17:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RegentsPark: How about, i self-revert and you fully protect the page until the differences are resolved. I also claim that my edits are in good faith but if i revert and others keep making changes, especially Vinegarymass911 is non-stop adding information, although with sources but my edits or Talha's edits or TW's edits are also sourced. It's hard to keep track of the changes when somebody like him is making non-stop changes to the page. How about fully protect the page after my revert and then keep it protected until matter is resolved on talk or through some other process. I am willing to go for an RFC but there is not point in doing that if we cannot keep track of the changes. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. That sounds good. --regentspark (comment) 18:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Sheriff. You are taking liberties with truth in making these claims. The people that reinstated edits after RP drew the line are:

The people that reverted back to RP's line are:

The only person that is participating in the talk page discussion from the first group is TZB. Needless to say, I was quite disappointed when you joined the gang. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: I did not mention any line here and i did not see one but i am willing to accept that i have been seeing edits in my watchlist from Vinegarymass911 on almost all Bangladesh related pages and might have wrongly assumed that he has been making major changes on Bangladesh Liberation War as well. Also, to begin-with, he was the one who first removed that whole "Violence against Biharis" section which was sourced so why his sourced edits should stay and anybody else's won't. Also, admin is an editor as well and it does not mean that an admin would draw a line anywhere and everyone will obey, that line should be based on some policy as well but as the admin pointed out the policy so i reverted myself. Also, he is consistently making changes to 1971 Bangladesh genocide now. Would it be appropriate for me now to start reverting him there. There is a dispute going on that page as well and his edits are against an established consensus if anyone else's is. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ok, I wouldn't blame you if you are getting confused between the various 1971 Bangladesh articles. Vinegarymass911 is working on the Bangladesh genocide article which is quite separate. The Bangladesh Liberation War article is essentially the parent of all the 1971 Bangladesh articles. This is the one that was effectively frozen by RP, and now physically frozen as well. This is the one we should work, slowly and methodically. The rest will fall in place afterwards. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Sanctions apply to all article related to Bangladesh, Pakistan, India. So, one cannot say that editing this article by one side is a violation whereas Vinegarymass911 gets a free pass to edit another under-sanctions article. You all know the amount content he has added to that article. We had kinda agreed that per WP:HIST newspapers arent RS, but majority of his edits are sourced from newspapers. Kutaliya and others do point out when TBZ, Sherrif or myself use such sources, but you dont flinch when Vinegarymass911 did it. Double standards? How come an edit from good-faith editors become a POV but not for another editor who have been pushing info continuously? Kutaliya, you rubbished Encarta not being an RS when it comes to history, but you didnt bother to do the same when Vinegarymass911 used Britanica? Regentsspark, this is disturbing, that's all I want to point out.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 21:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If he is using sources inappropriately, please feel free to raise it on the article talk page. Why do you need me to do so? These are not pages that I edit normally. If there are major disputes or edit-wars then I come in to help. Otherwise, it is your territory, not mine. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree that you are biased?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 19:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki policy on contacting

Are we allowed to exchange contact details (eg email, facebook, other forms of social media) on Wikipedia here or is it impermissible?TalhaZubairButt (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can add your email address in preferences and if someone wants to contact you then they have that option to contact. It's not visible to anyone but once you reply then the other person have your email address. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.Done.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 02:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MBlaze's talk page

Sherriff, there is no policy that says that a blocked user cannot remove messages from their talk page. Generally, except for the block notice, they can go ahead and remove everything. Repeatedly reverting the editor is disruptive. --regentspark (comment) 19:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: So, you are saying if a user has 9 talk pages then they can edit all their 9 pages. It is not established yet which one is his talk page, User talk:KnightWarrior25 or User talk:MBlaze Lightning or seven others belonging to his other 7 accounts? It still needs to be decided which one is his talk page. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter. A blocked editor removing comments from their talk page is not abusive. Repeatedly reinstating those reverted edits looks like you're just trying to make a point and is disruptive. The editor is blocked and won't be editing for a while, if at all. Let it go. --regentspark (comment) 20:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RegentsPark: Being a blocked user for socking, he is still posting against me on his talk page. Can you remove his last message against me? If I am not allowed to respond to him then why he is posting against me, especially when he is blocked. He also made some accusations against me in that message. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The page is protected. Nothing looks like an attack to me but tell me what you want to remove and I'll remove it. --regentspark (comment) 20:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: You removed my message from his talk page then he added a subsection naming it "Reply to Sherriff". How come my message gets removed and then his reply stays where he accuses of tag-teaming and other stuff. Once you removed my message you should have removed his message "Reply to Sherriff" as well. I don't understand this selective removal. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All gone. Hopefully this time sink has gone as well. --regentspark (comment) 20:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RegentsPark: Ok, thanks but now I am wondering what constitutes a violation of talk page access because I have seen users talk page access revoked before when they went slightly off-topic from their unblock request or they removed something from their talk page while blocked. I mean it would have been okay for him to remove that message once he was unblocked because that message was related to his unblock request. I am involved with this and when he makes false and fake promises and reasons why he should be unblocked then I should be allowed to comment and he can address those objections instead of completely removing the message. I don't understand why an admin would rule in favor of a blocked user who was blocked due to policy violations. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the user isn't behaving disruptively, there is no need to revoke talk page access. It looks to me that MBlaze is using that identity as their main identity so they can - within reason - post messages outlining what they intend to do to return. Like I said somewhere before, I've yet to see a serial socker reform but we need to AGF and give them the chance and focus on editing content instead of worrying about what MBlaze will or will not do. Either way, it's going to be a long time before they can come back. --regentspark (comment) 18:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC's

Hi Sheriff, since you have said that this is your first RfC, here are some tips. Even though the policy page says that it is ok to have RfC's that have just comments (votes) or to have threaded discussions, usually the uninvolved editors invited by the bot get put off when they see huge walls of text. So, I usually set up a separate subsection called "threaded discussion" and, when a huge thread develops in the middle, I move it to the threaded discussion section.I also add a section for References so that all the references are in one place, and don't break up the comments. Focusing on a single question usually gets better results than asking for comments on a huge complicated edit. The basic objective is to make it inviting to the uninvolved editors. Getting their opinions is basically what an RfC is about. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I think it was a poor RfC. I did not know what else to try instead of endless reverting. I hope next time I will do better. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 08:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the discussion between VM and you was proceeding ok, before you started the RfC. I think the idea of using a separate article to work through the violence on Biharis is worth trying. Most of us don't know the issues because all kinds of numbers are thrown around and we can't tell what is happening without doing in-depth research ourselves.
On another note, does this new editor] look familiar to you? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are giving law enforcement a bad name

You need to do a proper job of cleaning up your user page, dude. Weapons of mass destruction are not tools of law enforcement either. You are libelling Husain Haqqani. Goading other users on talk pages and at ANI is not appropriate behaviour for anyone who claims to respect the law either, see WP:NOTBATTLE. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sminthopsis84: I suggest you stop pestering Sheriff about his page. Your ANI complaint about it hasn't had any traction among uninvolved users and admins so far. (ArghyaIndian taking the opportunity to express his on grudge (compare [15]) is something else.) Time to let it go. Bishonen | talk 16:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

References

Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do have a featured article you can consult

Hi.

While editing Office 365 article, you had expressed interest in seeing a featured article that uses footnote citation style. You can see Microsoft Security Essentials article.

But why don't you actually look at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria instead? It tells you what a featured article needs to have. One of them is:

consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. The use of citation templates is not required.

If there are more questions, I'll be glad to assist.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help User:Altaf Raza samandar

I am Padmalakshmisx, but Mike V and Bbb23 is tagging me as Kichappan.


I like Padma Lakshmi, but Kichappan loves Veerappan. --Bulletproof Taxi (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

lol, interesting, very interesting. And how do you know me as a sock helper? It does not matter if you are sock of one or the other. Anyhow, I would prefer the decision of Bbb23 over claims of a serial socker and you and I both know that your actual master is someone else but Kichappan is you too, just different geographic locations. Keeping two sets of socks? Should I summon Magog the Ogre? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waterfall systems?

Hi SheriffIsInTown. Your edit summary accompanying the text you reinserted said: It does support. Add "arguably" to the text. Don't remove sourced content. I suggest removing unsourced content from the article if you want to practice removing! First of all, thank you for your concern about unsourced content; it is a concern I have long shared, and I've spent considerable effort keeping it out of a great many articles, including that one. (I haven't been around much lately, so there undoubtedly are many examples of unsourced content that have crept in when I wasn't looking.) I assure you I wasn't "practicing" removing anything—what I did was remove a statement that (1) cannot be verifiable without defining the term "waterfall system", which the article doesn't do, and (2) was not fully supported by the source you provided, in any event, because it plainly qualifies it. Adding "arguably", as you suggest I do (but for some reason didn't do yourself), doesn't address the first of those two issues. Sources need to be relevant and reasonably precise as well as reliable if they are to be included; it's not enough that they simply exist. It also may be worth noting that the source is a book whose topic isn't waterfalls or "waterfall systems" (whatever those may be) or even Iguazu but rather birding, so it's peripheral to the topic of the book and the expertise of the author. I'm sure we can work this out and I'd be happy to start a discussion on the article's talk page, although it might be a better idea if you do that since you're the one supporting the content's inclusion. Let me know what you think. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sock attacks

Hi Sheriff, My sympathies for the number of sock attacks you have been getting on your talk page. If these socks are any people I know, I hope they will read my lips and stop doing it. This is not what Wikipedia is about! - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: Thank you, with all the disputes we had, I appreciate your gesture! Let them continue, they continue with what they are best at and I will continue with what I am best at! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eid Mubarik

Thanks for remembering. Eid Mubarik to you and your family. May God bless you.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gilgit-Baltistan

Hi, i am from Gilgit , Pakistan and i need your help in a matter related to my edits on page Gilgit Baltistan here [[16]] Here user "Kautilya3 " is trying to prove that we were cheated by Pakistan while gilgit baltistan acceded to Pakistan. I have added alot of references on his talk page and on the talk page of the article which clearly state that we unconditionally offered ourself to pakistan and nearly 99 percent of Gbians and articles mention this fact. But in this article he has used such words in modern history and in inside pakistan that makes one feel that we are being tortchered and we are living a slave life which make me feel degraded. I feel he is just trying to put his indian agenda in the article, i would really appreciate if you could look into my edits and references and clean the article properly. Also the saying that alam khan said that we are fools also hurts our sentiments but this user has used that in the article too . Please i am not a very professional user of wikipedia due to which i dont know how to tackle such issues. Please can you look at the page history and correct the information. [[17]]

Check these two edits, one by me and one by him. What makes you feel out of these two edits. [[18]] [[19]]

i am also against this statement which i can not find in neutral sources "Alam replied [to the locals],: `you are a crowd of fools led astray by a madman. I shall not tolerate this nonsense for one instance... And when the Indian Army starts invading you there will be no use screaming to Pakistan for help, because you won't get it.'... The provisional government faded away after this encounter with Alam Khan."

Please i would appreciate , i am not a very pro user so i need your help to correct the facts as this changes the mindset of peopleSaladin1987 05:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Saladin, I have been long time contributor of Gilgit-Baltistan article. I will see what I can do to make it more neutral and encyclopedic than a mere collection of excerpts from speeches. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citing reliable sources

Hello Sheriff, I hope you're well. I have a few comments for you re: 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt.

First, it would be great if you could use edit summaries, especially in an article with fast-moving edits and especially when deleting or adding contentious material.

Second, re this edit - please read the source material carefully. The source you cited directly states that the involvement of Gulen "is speculation"—therefore it is certainly not a proper source for a flat statement that "Gulen is a leader of the coup." As you'll understand, speculation is not a proper basis for us to recite something as fact in our own voice.

Third, re this edit, where you wrote "Source will be added....Its a developing story" — remember that all content has to be supported by a reliable source at the time that it's added. See WP:BURDEN: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." The fact that a story is developing makes it more important, not less important, to do this, because in fast-moving situations misinformation or erroneous information may easily spread.

Thanks and happy editing, --Neutralitytalk 22:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutrality: I am removing all unsourced, add the source when you add them back. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but please note that citations are not required in the lead section if the statements are already supported in the body. See WP:LEADCITE. Neutralitytalk 22:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Neutrality: WP:LEADCITE actually says the opposite (there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads). Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The policy states that "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." I have no problem with including citations in the lead section in a fast-moving article, but you should be aware that they are not in every case required. Neutralitytalk 23:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BLP/3RR/Gulen

Please do not reinsert material — especially poorly sourced BLP material that is, as all acknowledge, speculative — into the infobox of the article 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt. Multiple editors have reverted your insertion of this content. Instead of reverting, you should discuss the matter on the talk page or on one of the relevant noticeboards (WP:BLP/N, WP:RS/N).

You've reverted twice diff of 18:01, July 15, 2016, diff of 7:51, July 15, 2016, so further reverting would run afoul of 3RR.

Thanks --Neutralitytalk 23:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

18:35, July 15, 2016: This is your third revert on this article, and you are in breach of the 3RR, as well as BLP. Please immediately self-revert. I don't want to make a report at WP:AN3RR, but I will if necessary. Neutralitytalk 23:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, another user has undid your reversion. If you revert again, I plan on making a WP:AN3RR report. Please—just drop the matter and wait for actual confirmation before putting in material that is wildly speculative. Neutralitytalk 23:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Neutrality: Your behavior is nothing but being a bully. You are overstepping your administrator authority and you do not very well know 3RR as well. There are multiple edits between my reverts. The content about Gülen is supported by multiple sources and its not just the claim of Erdoğan. The word (speculated) is added as well. You are not supposed to remove well sourced information. Go read the rules and make yourself aware of them, not sure what they check before making people admins. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there were "edits between your reverts" is irrelevant for 3RR purposes. The policy has nothing to do with that.
As to "well sourced": the source material explicitly states that the connection is speculative. It would violate a number of policies (beginning with WP:BLP on down) to include such speculative content in the infobox. Even if it has a "(speculative)" disclaimer, it would still run afoul of WP:WEIGHT. And all this material can be, and is, discussed in the text of the article where full context is given.
So call me a "bully" if you wish, but I will uphold Wikipedia policy. Neutralitytalk 23:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Neutrality: I am trying to uphold the same policies. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Sheriff is going steady ;-)

Hey Sheriff, well done with these latest SPI's :-) Btw, I just checked, it seems as if this sock in question, who is now blocked, made quite a few edits. Any specific plans and/or ideas regarding what to do with that? - LouisAragon (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LouisAragon: I will analyze his edits when I had free time. In the meantime, anyone is welcome to take an action on his edits as they see fit. I expect most of them to be his POV. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eid Mubarak!

Eid Mubarak!

Wishing you and your family a blessed Eid.

And many more!... 🐄🐐 Mar4d (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mar4d: Thank you and same to you as well. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Human3015

Human3015 and Kautilya3 are the same person. Rama's Arrow and DBigXrayhas returned with new accounts. --Silk Ruote cabin (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

I believe you're up to 3 reverts. Please stop trying to put this in. You know there are several editors that object.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: You need to provide logic on the talk, this is no logic that several editors have objected, you are the only one who is objecting. These edits have enjoyed months of consensus. Many editors have edited the page since then. Mar4d, TripWire, Towns Hill and Kautilya3 to name a few. Nobody objected except you. I understand you might have some personal experiences from genocides related to WWII but you should not export your biased view towards every genocide. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Operation leech

Can operation leech be incorporated into the article about india and state sponsored terrorism, as they sponsored the terrorists then back stabbed them? Danishkan (talk) 05:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Danishkan: It depends on the availability of sources, if sources say so, we should definitely add that. There is no censoring or holy cows on Wikipedia. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening edit summary Reply

You made this edit summary Don't you dare call me a "Pakistani POV" pusher again, you will find that you are not that "Bulletproof". You are not a real Sheriff. Even if you are what will you do?????? --Bulletproof Batman (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are not a Batman either, it was directed at the username and not the person. Your username gives an impression of someone who thinks they cannot be blocked hence I interpreted "Bulletproof" as "Blockproof", that was my interpretation and that was what I meant, nothing more than that. So my summary meant that "I am serving you with this notice now, do not call me Pakistani POV pusher again otherwise you will find that you are not blockproof", bringing someone's ethnicity in edit summaries like that can lead you to a block under WP:ARBIPA. I hope you understand now. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I never called you Pakistani POV pusher. I said "reverting Pakistani POV edit". I very well know what you meant by you are not Bulletproof. Administrators as @Abecedare: will support old editors. --Bulletproof Batman (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, why don't you come as an old editor, so the administrators can quickly spot you, you do not need to come as a new editor. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bulletproof Batman (talk) 06:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invite to the African Destubathon

Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so should be enjoyable! So it would be a good chance to win something for improving stubs on African sportspeople, including footballers, athletes, Olympians and Paralympians etc, particularly female ones, but also male. Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance (think Regions of countries etc). If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing a few expanded articles on African Paralympians, Olympians and committees etc, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pre

Hi, Pre meant "submitted a little too early for the contest", not "I'm going to edit this soon" haha. Can you only submit entries when you've destubbed them, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: I guess I asked this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon#Destub in progress and am still unclear about the process. How do you make sure that multiple people won't put effort in the same article. There could be people working in their sandbox or offline in MS Word. How do you make sure that your effort won't go to waste if you already started and researching the material? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there's 37,000 stubs, we hope that won't happen. If two people do unfortunately collide, and both make reasonably productive edits then they'll both be credited. If you're working on an article in your sandbox you can sign your name by an entry on the core stub lists as long as it is edited within a day or two, to indicate to other editors that you're doing it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr. Blofeld: Got it, thank you for clarifying! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mrpontiac1

Do you know who this is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coconut feather (talk • contribs) 06:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit, what a case! Lol Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Careful with the sources

Hi. I've reverted one of your edits. If the book variously uses "language" or "dialect" to refer to Hindko, then you can't use that as a source to back up only one of the two terms. – Uanfala (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you keep reinstating that reference. Is there anything I'm missing? – Uanfala (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re this Regardless of whether Hindko is a "language" or a "dialect", it's got its own ISO code and that should be used for marking up any text with the ((lang)) template. Using an altogether different code, even if it's for a related language, is plain disruptive. – Uanfala (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And again. Have you read the page that you cite from the folklore book? If a source says that "Hindko is an Indo-Aryan language [...] that has been treated as a dialect", you can't possibly use that to back up the claim "Hindko is a dialect". As for the table from Saxena's book: the phrase "a variety of Greater Punjabi" can't be used to support that statement either. "Variety" is a neutral term that isn't committed to making a language/dialect claim. "Greater Punjabi" is the name for the macrolanguage. – Uanfala (talk) 21:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm generally concerned with the way you use sources. There have so far been about half a dozen of your ref additions that have ended up on my watchlist and in every single case the sources have failed verification. A previous example is #Gomutra above. I know, I can't generalise on the basis of such a small sample, but I find that disconcerting. – Uanfala (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Uanfala: I don't accept your judgement about sources introduced by me, you are misinterpreting them. I am researching this topic further and I suggest you stop posting on my talk page and start a discussion on article talk page. I also suggest that you revert yourself if you reverted any of my edits because its not going to go anywhere until you discuss your changes and achieve consensus. You will be reverted and WP:STATUSQUO will be maintained while the discussion continues. This is not for only you and me to decide. I do not mind exploring any of the options such as 3O, informal or formal mediation, RfC or a referral to arbitration committee but this will not be decided by just you or me. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. I brought this up here only because I thought it was obvious. Will use article talk pages instead. – Uanfala (talk) 07:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problamistic User Uanfala

It had been extended edit war by Uanfala [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] .

  • Despite nearly 10 Wikipedians not agreeing with his views on talk pages of effected Talk pages.
  • He cherry picks and tries to define dialects in to Language.
  • Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
  • Wikipedians can not cherry pick.
  • Wikipedians can not impose a point a view.
  • Wikipedians move with consensus.
  • Wikipedia is an informational project. It can not misguide about language hierarchy.
  • Only standardisation of few dialects can not make them language. However few follow this rule for defining Hindko Saraiki Potwari as language. He cherry pick those.
  • Even those "few" along with "opposite others" have details whether "Explicit" or "Implicit" which demonstrate a common hierarchy Language Family: Indo European, Branch: Indo Iranian, Sub branch: Indo Aryan, Macro Language: Punjabi, Language: Western Punjabi, Dialects: Potwari Hindko Saraiki and many others, Sub dialects: North Hindko South Hindko.
  • All such linguistic sources are mentioned / added by many wikipedians.
  • If we accept Uanfala version of "cherry pick" and "Defining" then we will end up with a dilemma mentioned by User Flipro on this move request for 30 odd Punjabi dialects [25].

Time to report User Uanfala for topic ban for Cherry picking, Forum shoping, Edit warring, ignoring talk page consensus on western punjabi diffrent dialect talk pages. Please you being a registered senior editor start the proceeding for Topic Ban and violation of 3Rs. 39.60.232.41 (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)₯€₠€₯[reply]

SPI archives

Do not edit the archives for any reason ever.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Policy? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Proposed edits to comply with RfC consensus & Dispute resolution decision by Robert

I had filed a DRN against Uanfala and Robert was moderator who had given decision that first line of article should not be written as Saraiki language. You being extended confirmed user please make following edits to comply with DRN moderator decision.

  • Dialect section: to be renamed as "Subdialects" and rewritten as "The sub dialects tentatively proposed for Saraiki  :[27] are Central Saraiki, including Multani, Sindhi Saraiki, Southern Saraiki of Rajanpur and Rahim Yar Khan Districts. Eastern Saraiki which is transitional to Standard Punjabi, Northern Saraiki, or Thali of the Thal Desert. The dialects tentatively proposed for Saraiki by ethnologue are Bahawalpuri (Reasati, Riasati), Derawali, Jatki, Multani (Khatki). The name "Derawali" is used to refer to the local dialects of both Dera Ghazi Khan and Dera Ismail Khan, but "Ḍerawali" in the former is the Multani dialect and "Derawali" in the latter is the Thaḷi dialect.[28][29] 115.186.171.170 (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide me the link for the decision as i could not find it, still it will be my decision whether i want to go by the DRN decision or with completely new version of my own or to a past consensus version depending on when i have enough time to review all the changes since my last edit to that page. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Seraiki". ethnologue.com. Retrieved 9 May 2018.
  2. ^ Singh, Sarina (9 May 2018). "Pakistan & the Karakoram Highway". Lonely Planet. Retrieved 9 May 2018 – via Google Books.
  3. ^ Bendl, Regine; Bleijenbergh, Inge; Henttonen, Elina; Mills, Albert J. (9 May 2018). "The Oxford Handbook of Diversity in Organizations". Oxford University Press. Retrieved 9 May 2018 – via Google Books.
  4. ^ "Background Notes: South Asia, May, 2011". InfoStrategist.com. 9 May 1992. Retrieved 9 May 2018 – via Google Books.
  5. ^ Tucci, Paul A. (18 July 2016). "The Handy Geography Answer Book". Visible Ink Press. Retrieved 9 May 2018 – via Google Books.
  6. ^ Bhugra, Dinesh; Tse, Samson; Ng, Roger; Takei, Nori (20 August 2015). "Routledge Handbook of Psychiatry in Asia". Routledge. Retrieved 9 May 2018 – via Google Books.
  7. ^ "The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency". www.cia.gov. Retrieved 9 May 2018.
  8. ^ nationsonline.org, klaus kästle -. "National Languages of Asian Countries :: Nations Online Project". www.nationsonline.org. Retrieved 9 May 2018.
  9. ^ Guitard, Philippe; Khan, Shahid Ahmed; Bienen, Derk; Invest, European Commission EuropeAid Co-operation Office Asia (9 May 2018). "New business opportunities for EU companies in Pakistan: an investor's guidebook". Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Retrieved 9 May 2018 – via Google Books.
  10. ^ "Western Panjabi". Ethnologue. Retrieved 21 July 2016.
  11. ^ Pereltsvaig, Asya; Lewis, Martin W. (30 April 2015). "The Indo-European Controversy". Cambridge University Press. Retrieved 9 May 2018 – via Google Books.
  12. ^ Sen, Geeti (9 May 1997). "Crossing Boundaries". Orient Blackswan. Retrieved 9 May 2018 – via Google Books.
  13. ^ Bahu, Hadrat Sultan; Hamadani, Syed Ahmad Saeed (9 May 2018). "Divan of Bahu: English Translation with Persian Text". Lulu.com. Retrieved 9 May 2018 – via Google Books.
  14. ^ "India International Centre Quarterly". India International Centre. 9 May 1997. Retrieved 9 May 2018 – via Google Books.
  15. ^ Yar, Qadir; Rafat, Taufiq (9 May 1983). "Puran Bhagat". Vanguard Books. Retrieved 9 May 2018 – via Google Books.
  16. ^ Bradnock, Robert W. (14 October 2015). "The Routledge Atlas of South Asian Affairs". Routledge. Retrieved 9 May 2018 – via Google Books.
  17. ^ Bhatia, Tej (21 August 2013). "Punjabi". Routledge. Retrieved 9 May 2018 – via Google Books.
  18. ^ Bāhū, Sult̤ān (9 May 1998). "ديوان باهو". Hadrat Ghulam Dastagir Academy. Retrieved 9 May 2018 – via Google Books.
  19. ^ Tariq, Dr.Masood (16 January 2012). "Major Punjabi Dialects - TheNewsTribe". thenewstribe.com. Retrieved 9 May 2018.
  20. ^ "sikhchic.com - Article Detail". sikhchic.com. Retrieved 9 May 2018.
  21. ^ Qadeer, Mohammad (22 November 2006). "Pakistan - Social and Cultural Transformations in a Muslim Nation". Routledge. Retrieved 9 May 2018 – via Google Books.
  22. ^ Rahman 1995, p. 16: "the Punjabis claim that Siraiki is a dialect of Punjabi, whereas the Siraikis call it a language in its own right."; Shackle n.d.: "it has come to be increasingly recognized internationally as a language in its own right, although this claim continues to be disputed by many Punjabi speakers who regard it as a dialect of Punjabi"; Lewis, Simons & Fennig 2016: " Until recently it was considered a dialect of Panjabi."; Masica (1991, p. 443) defines Saraiki as a "new literary language"; see also Shackle (2003, pp. 585–86)
  23. ^ a b Rahman 1995, p. 16.
  24. ^ a b Shackle 2015.
  25. ^ Shackle 1977, p. 389.
  26. ^ Lewis, Simons & Fennig 2016.
  27. ^ This is the grouping in Wagha (1997, pp. 229–31), which laregely coincides with that in Shackle (1976, pp. 5–8).
  28. ^ Masica 1991, p. 426.
  29. ^ Grierson 1919, pp. 239ff.
  1. ^ 2013 estimate

Decision impletation

After third requested move decision. Still NOT MOVED. Now it is time to restore pre-dispute version of Saraiki dialect [26] in the light of Dispute resolution decision i.e. Revert all Language edits, Saraiki is a dialect as per RFC. [27]. For leade you can add further sources like [28], [29], [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38][39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.188.73.215 (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saraiki dialect

Hi. You recently participated in the Requested move discussion for Saraiki dialect, which has now been closed. The close is under discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 January#Saraiki dialect, where you'll be welcome to comment. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 13:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah

Definetely bearing some resemblance to him. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

Hello, SheriffIsInTown. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

- LouisAragon (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, SheriffIsInTown. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors. Also, your signature has two unescaped pipe characters (|), which must be coded as &#124; to avoid messing up templates.

Please change

[[User:SheriffIsInTown|'''<span style="color:blue;">Sh</span><span style="color:red;">eri</span><span style="color:blue;">ff</span>''']] | [[User talk:SheriffIsInTown|'''<font color="black">☎ 911</font>''']] | : Sheriff | ☎ 911 |

to

[[User:SheriffIsInTown|<b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b>]] &#124; [[User talk:SheriffIsInTown|<b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b>]] &#124; : Sheriff | ☎ 911 |

—Anomalocaris (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most users are updating their signatures as requested. We hope you will also. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LABEL

I have added references on this page [47], however I dont know how to label the references such as name and title od ref, date and time. Can you please label them, thanks alot in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.116.233.30 (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks sir, but one reference is not labelled (ref #4). Can u pls also fill that. Thanks again (45.116.233.56 (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Bare References

There are two bare references at this page [48]. Pls fill them when you are free. TIA!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.116.233.53 (talk) 02:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes for your edits on this page! I see you have improved the article and also labelled two bare references. I would like to point out that Reference #13 is still bare and not labelled, please also be kind enough to label that. (45.116.233.53 (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Hey there...

Just wanted to say welcome, and it's good to see you. Hope you will be around more often :) Mar4d (talk) 09:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mar4d: Thanks, just doing some minor edits for now as I don't have time for stuff which involves thinking and focus, trying to help Wikipedia as much as and in anyway I can! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ref #2

Please label reference 2 on this page [49]. Thank u

Also there is a notability tag on the page, pls look into it if u can

(45.116.232.30 (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Look into it

Pls look into this page [50] where reference number 16 is a bare url. Regards (45.116.232.0 (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Reference dates

Thank you for you work on references for articles such as Scion tC. Could you pay attention to the date format as well. The Scion tC article used yyyy-mm-dd dates and you changes added dd mmmm yyyy dates. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  20:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Stepho-wrs: I do not think that is the proper date format to use in Wikipedia articles but if certain article requires such format then it would need to be changed manually like you did or I can be notified and I will be more than willing to fix that. I do not think it matters much though, my goal is to minimize the bare urls in articles because articles look messy with them. Also, I do not think I changed the format for already filled urls, only the ones which were left bare. It seems you did not get bothered by the bare urls but by the date format. :) Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Information on secondary vs primary sources.

Hello Sheriff, I was wondering if you could help shine some light on the labyrinth of rules and regulations of wikipedia on secondary vs. primary sources. I am not certain if this: Respect_secondary_sources only applies to medical sources, or secondary sources in general. It refers to this supplement page Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources but the supplement page states that it is not yet thoroughly vetted by the community... I also discovered this line of text on the no original research page about secondary sources "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.". which seems to be valuable in my case.

Any advice or help with the rules is greatly appreciated. Thank you.24.132.187.209 (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, welcome to the most screwed up system in the world, I have seen editors use a policy one way while others use in completely the opposite way. My simple explanation to identify primary vs. secondary source would be, for example you claim that you live in Netherlands, that would be primary but if I claim that you live in Netherlands, that would be secondary. Another example, writer A claims in his own book that he has accomplished this, this and this in life, this is primary but if writer B claims in his book that writer A has accomplished this, this and this in his life, that would be considered secondary. WP:No original research is the proper policy though, the other one is only for medical. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the super fast reply, Good Sir! It is very much appreciated, it was impossible to ask anywhere else... By the way, could wikipedia editors dismiss Valid Secondary Sources, written by professors and published by renowned academic publishers, Springer and Routledge no less - by demanding that only academic sources based on "analysing primary data" are allowed or valid (which sounds a lot like Primary Sources, seeing they are close to the source)?24.132.187.209 (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Simple answer "No", they cannot reject a scholarly source the way you describe it if we go by the policy but my personal opinion is opposite to that, I think for a source to be authentic, we should be able to trace the source to the original otherwise an author can write anything sitting in his drawing room which has no value in my view. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again, Good Sir! It is very hard to find people that actually reply. The two sources might also have analysis of primary data, and thus could be primary sources (as well as secondary sources, depending the perspective), sadly it is inaccessible (google books limitations). Sadly, I doubt that the opposite party, would even accept any of these two sources, whether they be secondary or primary sources, seeing they are inconvenient for him and his agenda either way... He repeatedly misinterpreted these sources (quickly detected by checking the sources). Failing that approach, he tried to destroy the evidence by deleting quotes from the sources which prevented future misinterpretations, without ever mentioning it in his edit descriptions) and now discredit them (which is why I am asking about secondary vs primary sources)... On top of that, I just found out he finally made a talk page, and then stealth condemns me (in his edit descriptions) for not showing up... while he never send me any notification about it whatsoever... is that even allowed? Is there a way to contact an moderator(s) I've been searching for so long but cant find any, I am tired of this troll...24.132.187.209 (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Try WP:3, if that does not help, then you can try WP:DRN, both of these processes were never of any help to me whenever I needed it but who knows, you might be able to get something out of it. As for notifying about talk discussion, I do not think it is necessary and there is no way to notify an IP address anyway. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sheriff Good Sir, my sincerest apologies, upon returning home from the airport... I noticed that KartvelianCelt here has followed me around, while I was gone. Worse, he thought he had the right to just barge in uninvited, at the Talk pages of people I sought advice from. I never invited him, nor even mentioned your name to him, at all. The time gap between his last series of edits took 11 days (31 march to 10 April), Yet I never followed him around and harassed the people he visits, on their pages, just to get his attention... I don't know what his problem is... Here, he claims he could not notify me, alright... yet here at another Editors talk page [51], he stated he "invited" me post on the talk page of the wikipage in question. I triple checked my talk page history. I never gotten any invitation or note on my Talk page, whatsoever.
However, someone who I've never seen before, called Kautillya, showed up and left a "good faith" reminder on my page, that same day, on the 13th... And, while searching for Kart's none existing invitation, I found another one of Kautillya's messages instead, his first message [52] accusing me of "edits that do not conform to our policies and therefore have been reverted. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism"... while I was away? Impossible. Seems like he messed up. He did removed that, but only after posting that "good faith" reminder, then apologized and left [53]... Weird. Clicking on Kautillya's talk page and talk archive shows he is drowning in disputes, edit wars, with all kinds of rather heavy accusations lodged against him. Yet, he hypocritically posts all that on my Talk page? Btw, thank you for the suggestions of WP:3 and WP:DRN, I will look into them. Thanks again! 24.132.187.209 (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't notice that you had a talk page. I swear you only made this recently... anyway, we can discuss the issues there instead. As I said previously, I only followed you around because I did not know any other way to communicate with you. Also, although you did not name me, you did make some pretty strong accusations against me. That's okay as I understand edit conflicts on wikipedia can be really frustrating but please try and stay calm when interacting with users you disagree with. I'm not "harassing", "trolling" or "vandalising". As I've made clear in my most recent comments, I would prefer dialogue rather than agro ;) --KartvelianCelt (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My good friend, 24.132.187.209. How am I to send you a notification when you are not even registered? What can I do? Again, I clearly stated that I did not intentionally try to destroy evidence: I may have erased one of your sources by accident in the past for which I am sorry but there is no way I intentionally tried to destroy your evidence. In any case, here is a chance for some dialogue. We can discuss this on the talk page without the need for any further agro. By the way, is my current phrasing satisfactory for you? I did change the wording from "wine-like drink" to "wine". That was your main concern, right? Sorry SheriffIsInTown for writing this on your talk page. There is no other way I can communicate with that IP address without following his activity. --KartvelianCelt (talk) 06:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

label

Pls label reference number 24 on this page [54]. TIA (45.116.233.27 (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Saraiki , Hindko and Pahari-Potwari

Hello there

How are you ? Must be fine . Subject topics need a revisit by you. In the context of Language Vs Dialect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.33.227.247 (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to sometime in future when I have time as these topics takes a great time investment. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References label

Pls label reference # 21 on this page [55] thankyou (45.116.232.53 (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

reFill and accessdate

I noticed an edit where you added syntax to a citation with a bare link, which is great to see happen. However, when you did this, you didn't notice that the link was broken and redirecting to the website's homepage. Your edit added an accessdate, implying that the link was working and verified to support the text when your edit was made. I'm unfamiliar with reFill and don't know if it quietly and erroneously adds these when it shouldn't, just letting you know about the issue. djr13 (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added citations

Hello. I have added citation #33 to this page [56] Can you please label (103.228.157.65 (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

pnsc

Ive added couple of sources please label [57] (45.116.232.25 (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

A D Khawaja

Please label ref 2 on this page [58] (119.157.246.209 (talk) 12:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Securing My Account

Dude, I saw this and was wondering why would anyone need this, but then just a few days back I received a notification about a failed login attempt to my account asking me to change my password?! Weird. Did someone try hacking my account? How do I get this committed identity thing, can you please guide? Thnaks—TripWire________ʞlɐʇ 13:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TripWire: Damn, that smells like a plot to me, there are definitely folks who are upset with us here at Wikipedia and would leave no stone unturned to get us blocked. Well, that failed login attempt thing was the reason for me to setup committed identity, it would not save the account from being hacked but it can make it easier to prove that it’s indeed you when you recover your account, you can find more at WP:Committed identity. This might be an attempt by someone to get us linked technically through failed login attempts filing a future SPI if they consider the failed attempts as a valid piece of evidence. I suggest copy/pasting the notification showing the time as to how long ago it was attempted and emailing this to a CU so they can look at the logs and find out that failed attempt and block the IP. Let’s email to same CU so that one person can connect the dots and get to the bottom of this. @Mar4d, TopGun, NadirAli, Samee, Ma'az, and Uncle Sargam: to do the same if there was a failed attempt on your accounts as I suspect there could be same folks trying this with whom we all had a content dispute or disputes in other areas such as ANI, AE and SPIs. I recommend emailing it to KrakatoaKatie or if they can take an action with this mention then that would save us from emailing them. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Woah! You got the notification too, really? That's suspicious.—TripWire________ʞlɐʇ 14:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TripWire: I got CU's reply, no need to bother her further with this, I will email you and give you a scoop on this if you can trust me. Others, please refrain from emailing, ask me if you have concerns that is if you can trust me. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve been frequently receiving these failed login notifications. At first, I got flustered but later changed the password to a strong one and signed up for the committed identity. I also mentioned it on Faizan’s talk page.  samee  converse  10:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FYI @TripWire:, @SheriffIsInTown:, @Samee:, if you're referring to failed login attempts over the past few days ago there is no real reason to be concerned over them. It's a known issue that affected a very large number of wikipedians Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Please help- who tried to break into my account?. Of course you should always make sure you have a secure password, but you weren't targeted, it was a very widespread attack. Nil Einne (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ರಾಹುಲ್ (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are indefinitely banned from all edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan, broadly construed. You are warned that any further disruption or testing of the edges of the ban will be met with either an indefinite topic ban from all topics related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan or an indefinite block, without further warning.

You have been sanctioned per this AE discussion.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please go to WP:TBAN and read the information there to see what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period, to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal against the imposition of the ban, see WP:AC/DS#sanctions.appeals which explains the ways in which you may appeal. Additionally, you may ask for this sanction to be removed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard after six months of positive contributions to Wikipedia. GoldenRing (talk) 08:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded "rescues" of sources

You recently made this edit to Goldbach's conjecture. The edit summary claims this: "Rescuing 8 sources and tagging 0 as dead. #IABot (v1.6.5)".

There are no sources that need rescuing. Rather, 0 are dead, as the edit summary indeed says.

The edit makes the references annoying and seems to provide no positive value (IMO). I am unaware of a consensus of editors to the contrary. Hence, I have undone the edit.

Looking over your list of recent contributions, I saw that you been been making similar "rescues" with many other articles. What is the purpose, and do editors of other articles agree with it?

TheSeven (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSeven: I thank you for reaching out to me but your concern is not valid. Please read WP:LINKROT, according to that, it is highly desirable to add archive links at the time when the citation is added and that is exactly what I am doing, I am adding archive links to references which does not have them. Additionally, it is not necessary for the link to be dead to be rescued. The links can be rescued before becoming dead especially if they are in danger of being rotten soon. If you would notice, not all of references are being rescued which means that the ones which do not have a danger of being dead in future are left alone but the others are being rescued. It's not necessary for editors to agree with it, the policy is there and I will keep following it, if someone has an objection, they can reach out to me like you did and I will explain it to them. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kind thanks for explaining this. I was unaware of that policy. It looks to me like you are indeed following that. As you rightly say, that is what matters. With much appreciation, TheSeven (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that WP:LINKROT is not policy, it is not even a guideline. The prophylactic addition of archived ULRs is questionable. There are some highly reliable sites like PubMed (continuously active since 1996) that have existed longer than the Wayback Machine (started in 2001). Hence URLs to PubMed should be exempted from archive links. (Even better, these |url= should be replaced with |pmid= and |pmc=.) Also adding archive links to URL DOIs (e.g., |url=https://doi.org/10.1109/5.771073) should also be exempted (and replaced with |doi=) since they are fixed and less likely to go dead. IMHO, it would be better for a bot to continuously scan URLs, and then add archive URLs if and only if the URL is dead. Otherwise we are unnecessarily cluttering articles with unneeded |archive-url=, |archive-date=, and |dead=no parameters, some of which will never be needed. Boghog (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification and Amendment

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_India-Pakistan regarding the ARE decision that affected you. — MapSGV (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited NA-33 (Hangu), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hangu District (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) 09:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

reference issue

You used Refill for a reference: edit but the resulting reference is a 404, can you track down the correct reference?--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sphilbrick: That is the original link but it is broken so I archived it now, archive has the same content which was present at the original broken link. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manual moves

Please don't do manual page moves, as you did at Orakzai Agency. This loses the page history. The correct approach is to drop a request for swapping article and redirect at WP:RFPP, who will do a round-robin move preserving histories. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elmidae, I take it that you meant WP:RMT, not RFPP? – Uanfala (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Elmidae, point noted! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Uanfala: oops. Yes, so I did. Sorry 'bout that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FATA-KP merger

Please stop changing the tehsil and agency articles for FATA to say they are in KP, the merger hasn't been put in action yet. FATA is under the president of Pakistan's jurisdiction currently, he hasn't handed over control to the KP government yet.Avg W (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

President has signed the bill, constitutionally FATA is part of KP. Now, the process to complete the changes on the ground can take time, that does not have any effect on constitutional status so it's all good in the bigger picture. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source on the president signing the Constitution (Thirty-first Amendment) Bill, 2018? This source states the bill he has signed is the Interim Governance Regulation and that he has yet to assent to the amendment https://www.geo.tv/latest/197129-president-mamnoon-hussain-signs-kp-fata-merger-bill . I have been trying to find a source that specifically refers to the status of the amendment act and have been unable to find one. I think some of the headlines are potentially confusing, since many refer to the "merger bill" when it appears that this could describe two bills - the Interim Governance Regulation (which does not grant authority to the KP government over FATA on its own) and the Constiution (Thirty-first Amendment) Bill. I realise the changes will occur very soon but I am cautious to update without a clear source on the status of the amendment.Avg W (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

review page

Pls review this page and label the bare reference thankyou [59] (45.116.232.17 (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

If my words were hurtful then I would like to say sorry for what happened. Happy editing! Saqib (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib: Thanks and sorry for the lecture, if it came out that way! 😀 Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
--Saqib (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bye election spelling

Hi. I noticed that you recently changed the spelling of ‘Bye election’ to by election for the NA 125 constituency. However, Article 2(vi) of the elections act 2017 clearly states that bye election is spelt with an ‘e’ at the end of it in Pakistani legal terms, which is why I have spelt it like that. Masterpha (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Masterpha:Thank you, I did not know that! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Masterpha: Actually, no proper spellings are By-election, we are supposed to follow independent sources and not official documents, bye-election is less commonly used, in Google Books and News searches, by-election seems to outweigh bye-election by a very wide margin, millions compared to thousands. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but in pakistani law terms it gives a clear spelling of by-election, no matter how commonly it is used around the world, as ‘bye’ Masterpha (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Constituency Pages

Hi, please see Constituency NA-178, if this is OK, then we should follow this in all constituencies page. Otherwise, undo new changes.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@امین اکبر: You did not notice, I already have it created as NA-178, please do not add the word "Constituency" in the title. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry i did not notice, then you should redirect Constituency NA-178 to NA-178 (Rahim Yar Khan-IV).

India-Pakistan arbitration amendment request closed

The India-Pakistan arbitration amendment request filed on 23 May 2018 (the appeal of certain arbitration enforcement actions by GoldenRing) has been closed as unsuccessful. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@L235: What is the way forward for me now? Can I never appeal again on any forum? Is this sanction considered permanent now? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with Committee procedure, further substantive review of the sanction (i.e. whether it was valid when first placed) is barred. You may "still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months[...]". Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@L235: Once per six months, counting the one just closed or uncounting it? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the intent of that section, counting this appeal, i.e. you may not request the sanction be eased or removed for six months starting today. That's not an official Committee interpretation, but I'd guess that the Committee would agree. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nasirul Mulk LL.M. Qualifications and Inner Temple

Hi, I'm writing to discuss the recent reverts you made to my edits on Nasirul Mulk regarding LL.M. qualification from the Honourable Society of Inner Temple. The Inner Temple is an Inn of Court and not a University, therefore the Inn cannot grant an academic degree. The news source referred is mistaken. The Inn can only call an individual to the bar. He presumably studied for the BVC from the Inns of Court School of Law which is now City Law School. I tried discussing this on the talk page of the article, but I'm assuming you did not see that. Ahmer Jamil Khan 21:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahmer Jamil Khan: Please write on article talk page, thank you! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SheriffIsInTown: It is already there on the article's talk page. Ahmer Jamil Khan 21:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review page

Hey! All other articles of similar kind have been reviewed by various wikiusers, however this one some how got missed [60]. Can you please review it so that it is officially on the go! TIA! (Regent007 (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Why?

why did you do this? no edit summary = not cool --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@R'n'B: Definitely a mistake and not cool at all, I thought I was reverting IP, not sure how your edit got in between, I will revert myself. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. We all make mistakes. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of candidates

Please take a look at Ontario General Election from a few days ago in which the list of Candidates was on the Election page. It was moved to a separate page after the election. Federally, though, I see that the list of candidates started off on a separate page: Results by riding of the Canadian federal election, 2015. So, would you be opposed to a similar list of candidates on a separate page for Pakistani general election, 2018? // sikander { talk } 19:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sikander: Honestly, it is an overkill to have such a long list of candidates on Wikipedia when we will have candidates with their votes listed on individual constituency pages. To me, that is good enough so I do not think that we need to have a separate page with names of all the candidates let alone have it on main election article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SheriffIsInTown: Yeah, I would absolutely not want to maintain a gigantic list like that, but if someone else wants to do it, then there are existing election pages with all candidates in a table and I don't think users should be stopped from doing so. I suppose my recommendation to user Uzair 161 is to start a new page and keep the main election page clean. // sikander { talk } 19:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sikander A separate page such as List of candidates for Pakistani general election 2018 would be a good idea and they can include a link in the main article somewhere probably in See also section. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Hi Sikander Hope you're doing well. I too agree with Sheriff that we don't really need a list of candidates running for July general election because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If we're going to create such a list, we would have to add PA candidates as well which means such a list of all candidates would have to include ten thousands of people, mostly non-notable per WP:BIO. For what its worth, there were more than 15,000 contesting candidates in 2013 as per ECP document and this this news story. --Saqib (talk) 12:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Saqib, I was actually thinking of pinging you when starting this discussion. Maintaining a huge list of all candidates would be tiresome, but if someone wants to do it, they have my blessing. 15,000+ is a bit crazy though and I agree that much data would just be an endless collection of names. Also, user Uzair_161 is new to Wikipedia, so it might not be a good idea to start off with something this big and complicated. // sikander { talk } 12:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sikander I've no problem if someone wants to create party-wise lists such as "List of PML-N candidates or List of PTI candidates in the Pakistani general election, 2018" but I guess we're talking about "List of candidates for Pakistani general election 2018" which I assume is a general list and should accommodate each and every candidate from each and every party and constituency which does not make sense to me because of the concerns I expressed above. As I said, more than 15,000 candidates contested in last general election and I assume the number would be much bigger this time around. --Saqib (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib and Sikander: Any such list would be worthless and would add no value to Wikipedia. I propose adding list of winning candidates to National Assembly of Pakistan page if we do not already do that. I think the whole house should be there. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
List of members of the 14th National Assembly of Pakistan lists all winners. That's a good list covering all the regions and constituencies. Started by Saqib, of course! // sikander { talk } 13:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I've started list the list. Will try to finish it by end of this week. --Saqib (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: Can you bring your draft to main space today? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is in draft at Draft:List of MPs elected in Pakistani general election, 2018. Is it a good idea to list both MPAs and MNAs on a single page? --Saqib (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib: I do not think you need to create one combined list of MPs elected. I was asking if you can bring Draft:List of members of the 15th National Assembly of Pakistan to main space today so we can start filling it in tomorrow? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK sure. --Saqib (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation of New election box

Before we start implementing the new election box and creating new templates, do you think it requires further discussion on the WikiProject Pakistan Talk Page with other active users, or should it just be implemented without further discussion? I fear that some users may not be happy with the changes... If no response comes I will just start the implementation after Eid. Regards Masterpha (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited NA-52 (Islamabad-I), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rawat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

It will still coms under letter heading A B C it wont show Full districts name you can try and let me know i will do it all if its work or we can put number like [Category:National Assembly Constituencies of Pakistan] User talk:Saadat Malik | 21:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (NA-142) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating NA-142, SheriffIsInTown!

Wikipedia editor Lineslarge just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for creating the page.

To reply, leave a comment on Lineslarge's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Lineslarge (talk) 12:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correction

Correction
'Malik' is used ob on the banners. Hassaan1896 (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hassaan1896: Not sure what you mean by ob? Regardless, Wikipedia is not an advertisement or electioneering forum, if a source calls a subject Malik, we will call him the same otherwise we will omit it! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

StLouis2

The user stLouis2 keeps editing what people write on talk page. For example, you and I wrote ‘oppose’ and he altered this to ‘support deletion by prosper’ for you and completely deleted my response. Surely this is not allowed Also, he did the same thing previously when he merged two sections of the talk page together because he thought they were related.. Masterpha (talk) 06:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani general election

Sheriff--you gotta do something about that paragraph that starts "There is a nexus between judiciary and military to influence and subvert...". You can't just say "there is" without attribution to a reliable source, etc. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: The sources are at the end of the paragraph, let me know what do you think about those, I am adding more though! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about the sourcing, it's about how it's written up. You can't state it like it's a fact about the natural world. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: Thanks for your advice, I was not sure about it as well whether I have written it in a proper way or not. What do you think about it now, I added the words, It has been alleged in the beginning! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ride on, Sheriff. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in Constituencies Pages

First of all, I am not a new user. Second, if I had not added the sources, then you could have notified me about this. I spent some time on these edits and you have reverted all the changes. I have made all the edits using official lists of Election Commission of Pakistan. If you want, I can send you the link. I do not exactly know how to add references. If you could help me on this, it would be great. My email ID is : hassaan1896@hotmail.com Hassaan1896 (talk) 10:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hassaan1896: It would definitely be a very good idea for you to stop editing for a while and learn how to reference because that is very essential for editing Wikipedia and an editor without the knowledge of referencing is not very useful to the project and ought to create more work for others!
Furthermore, the day you were adding the content, ECP did not have the lists published on their website by that day but even if we assume that they had it then why were you just adding names of candidates of one party, this can be considered akin to giving an edge to one party over others and as akin to serving one party's interests and that is not considered a very valuable trait on Wikipedia! If I have to go add all other candidates then I can add MMA as well, it's not a big effort for me and it would save you a precious edit which you can use somewhere where it is more valuable!
Then, when I reverted you on one page, you continued to edit other pages but instead you could have stopped and left me message like you did now telling me about list on ECP website or could have added text in the summary but should I assume now that you do not know how to add a summary line but know how to edit the page? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lists were there already on that day (Friday, 6th July). You can check the date on ECP website on which it uploaded the lists (pdf file) . Well, I was not adding names of any specific party candidates. I was just consulting the lists and removing the parties that were not taking part and correcting the names (if they were wrong or misspelled). There are 10-11 candidates from each constituency. It is not a good idea to add the names of all. I was adding the names of major parties. From a constituency from where some party is not taking part, definitely you have to remove the party's name. And also, you should remove the name of the party unless you mention its candidate in front of it.

I was editing using mobile phone app. That's why, I couldn't get the notifications.

I am hearing about 'summary line' option first time.

I suggest that you should consult the lists and make corrections yourself as it will take time to learn referencing for me and elections are near.Hassaan1896 (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moving of Kulsoom Nawaz to Kalsoom Nawaz

I moved because her name is pronounced as such and inauguration of thalassaemia center in Islamabad her name is mentioned as Kalsoom Nawaz. The Nation writes her name as Kalsoom [61] , The News also [62] , more photo results with Kalsoom Nawaz [63] Jibran1998 (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jibran1998: We cannot prefer few sources over many, when article titling is decided, it's decided on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME, please check the sources inside the article, only two or three spell it as Kalsoom but most spell it as Kulsoom. Both spellings are correct but Wikipedia would use the most common spelling as per reliable sources! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GDA article

Is there any current article for the Grand Democratic Alliance in sindh? маsтегрнатаLк 07:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Masterpha: I do not think , there is one! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rescuing Links

Hi, SheriffIsInTown. A while back, you did a mass reference archive / rescue for the Skinny Puppy article. Thanks for that. I was wondering how you go about doing that, when it should be done, and if it's always a good thing to do. Thanks in advance, CelestialWeevil (talk) 04:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to talkpage message regarding reversion to my edits on NA 13 Mansehra

You left a message on my talkpage regarding those reversions to NA-13 (Mansehra-I) so here's reply to that.., I added Sardar to his name because if u see the page Shahjahan Yousuf, even there it is written so. Also everywhere in his area he's known as Sardar Shahjahan Yousuf,similarly in his posters and in newspapers etc he's mentioned as Sardar Shahjahan Yousuf, so there's no reason that you find it unnecessary. I made another change to MMA's candidate name which you reverted was also right. His name is Baseer Awan not Baseer Khan. How did u find these unnecessary?? Lastly I changed order and placed independent candidate on 2nd according to the current political scenario of the area. Had he been my relative, I would have placed him on first, not second... (Usama Ahmad 07:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC))

Winning candidates

Hey there, I can understand your urge to list the names of the winning candidates, but I suggest we should wait for some hours and let the dust settle a bit. --Saqib (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: I understand your concern but Amjad Ali Khan has won NA-96 and Imran Khan has won NA-95, there is no way the runners up candidate can surpass the lead. These too constituencies are almost decided. You can consider me a responsible editor, I would not add anything if I am not 100% positive about it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I trust you. Go ahead. --Saqib (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I prefer not to update the BLP's on winning candidates unless we have verified RS. --Saqib (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect...

... this Mir Khan Muhammad Jamali is actually Jan Mohammad Jamali but I'm not sure. Whats your thoughts? --Saqib (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: They are two different people, Jan Muhammad Jamali was running on Balochistan Awami Party ticket while Mir Khan Muhammad Jamali was running on PTI ticket. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay great. Because the names are bit same, and both hails from Jafarabad District, I reckoned both could be same. --Saqib (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

‘Total votes’

In a recent edit you listed the registered voters under ‘total votes’. The figure you are showing is of registered voters, *not* the total amount of votes. A vote would be a marked ballot paper. маsтегрнатаLк 11:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Masterpha: Marked ballots are the turnout figure then what is the total vote, I figured it was total registered votes. If your point is correct, is there a box to list total registered voters as this figure changes from election to election and should be listed in the election box for each election! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
’Election box registered electors’ should do the job: you don’t even need to add the 100, you just have to use the field ‘reg. electors’ instead of ‘votes’: you can check my latest edit on the NA-61 page if you are unsure. Also ‘total’ would be valid and rejected votes together, which is what is used for the turnout figure. маsтегрнатаLк 14:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Masterpha: Thank you, that is perfect! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani general election, 2018

Sheriff, I would really honestly suggest that you refrain from further edits like this. Please note that removing sourced content should not be done pre-emptively. Please! Mar4d (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mar4d: I request you the samething, your changes are at best border at WP:COATRACK, sources claim totally different account than what you are adding, your changes cannot be allowed just because you are adding the sources with them. Why don't you discuss on article talk page before making those changes? My content was looked at by numerous neutral admins before you started making changes, all I am asking you is to obtain consensus and preserve status quo. Please discuss on article talk instead of my user talk. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, you unilaterally removed content when there was no consensus to do so. You also made changes to the lead which are at odds with NPOV and the source material. This is my major contention. Until and unless we resolve this, we can't move further. Please review my comment on the talk regarding presenting a complete rather than one-sided picture. What that means is we include claims of both the contesting parties. My sources (which you removed) one-hundred-percent pertain to the pre-poll allegations. Please also note that there is a difference between fact and allegations, and until there is evidence, we can't present allegations as fact. We should distinguish between both, as this is not the first elections where controversy has erupted. Mar4d (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mar4d: Actually, it's quite the opposite, the content added by me was longstanding, check the page history, I contested your additions right away so you do not have consensus no matter what your claims about sources and NPOV, we can discuss at the talk page and decipher those and then add whatever we agree upon, as for the NPOV, check the page history, the concerns were addressed by Fish and karate and Ivanvector to some extent. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sheriff: The edits by Fish and karate you are alluding to were made several weeks ago. They do not pertain to the recent reverts of sourced content which is focused entirely on pre-poll allegations, which still need to be mentioned for NPOV. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) @Mar4d: I've yet to look at the "allegations of election meddling" section but I found no difference in the lead. Are you okay with the lead or you have reservations? --Saqib (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: I have reservations not Mar4d, last changes are made by Mar4d, his attempts tone the allegations down with which I am not comfortable, I consider them akin to WP:CENSOR, it's like if we cannot completely censor them, let's tone them down. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll look at the "allegations of election meddling" section but as I said above I see no major difference in the lead section. Mar4d just relocated a para In the lead up to the elections..... --Saqib (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib: That relocation makes a major difference, if you don't see a difference then why not accept my version? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK I get it now. Thanks for clearing the things up on the article's talk page. Hope to revert soon! --Saqib (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hi,

How to Rescue sources?— Bukhari (Talk!) 10:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AN

What do you mean? I think you might have missed his recent edit "Thank you Drmies for clarifying that."[64] In any case it reads like a clear attempt to derail the thread and it is simply going to speak against you in future. You still have the chance to self-revert. Lorstaking (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

To enforce an arbitration decision and for your participation at this ANI thread. This editor is heavily involved in the topic area that you are banned from, and your participation there is clearly related to that topic area., you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~)). If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. ~ Rob13Talk 18:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

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

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

Request reason:

@BU Rob13: Please reconsider your decision as I participated in that AN thread unknowingly that I will be violating my topic ban. I have stuck to my topic ban so far and did not step closer to the subject area. Had I known that I am violating my topic ban, I would never have participated in that AN thread as it was not worth the block. Similarly, I see you blocked three other editors for the same violation, I am pretty sure they were on that thread due to that misunderstanding as well. My misunderstanding was further strengthened by seeing others commenting on that thread who had topic bans and I thought since they are commenting while not being blocked then it must not be a violation. You can see my editing history as this is my first block and that too is due to misunderstanding. Requesting you to unblock as blocks are supposed to be preventative and not punitive and my editing history is a proof that I have more net positive for Wikipedia than negative. These few edits on this thread count for 0.000001% of my overall edits. Sheriff ☎ 911 18:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I've lifted the block on the understanding that you will remove yourself entirely from this dispute. If that turns out not to be the case, it's likely the next block will be longer, and I will not lift it. ~ Rob13Talk 20:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I may be willing to reduce this to 24 hours provided I get a guarantee from you that your participation in this dispute is over. I understand you do a lot of good work on Wikipedia, but this protracted and ongoing personal dispute between the dozen or so editors (including all those who were topic banned along with you and a few others) has got to stop. It's a complete drain on administrator resources, and your topic ban was placed to stop it. It's at the point where, if you see one of the other editors' usernames, you should probably hit the back button and go elsewhere. The continuous sniping back and forth must stop. ~ Rob13Talk 19:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BU Rob13: I guarantee you that my participation in that dispute is over and I am serious when I say that I did not even know that the dispute is stemming from that topic area as the topic banned editors who participated in that discussion cannot edit that topic area so my understanding was that this has nothing to do with that topic area. I request you to please lift the block entirely if possible so I do not have to wait for 24 hours to continue my editing related to Pakistan election, you can check my editing history as that was the area where I am focused at and I did not even interact with many of editors participating in that discussion. WP:AN was on my watch list due to some previous discussion and seeing this unjustified proposal I got intrigued to comment but had I known that it can be considered a topic violation then I would have refrained from it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note for remembrance

Nomination of Muhammad Hassan Sherani for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Muhammad Hassan Sherani 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/Muhammad Hassan Sherani until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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) 16:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Imran Khan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chief Minister of Punjab (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Premiership and first 100 days of Imran Khan

These two are very interesting and important topics. I wanted to start both of them but couldn't get enough time and motivation. I'll try my best to contribute to them but I hope you won't let them become obsolete and outdated. --Saqib (talk) 07:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: I am honestly never sure whether to start a topic or not and same thing happens, others create them and I keep thinking whether it is a good idea or too early. So, I was watching Khan's speech and thinking, man, nobody ever talked to Pakistani nation before and as soon as he finished his speech, Prime Ministership of Imran Khan was up but I was still thinking that the other topic might be too early, let him complete 100 days, see what he does and then decide but after seeing @Nauriya:'s message and some digging, I thought there is a precedent in the case of US, the pages are created the election night or next morning and since his party gave a 100 day plan already which means it is first for Pakistan but we have to start somewhere.

I can definitely use some help, I do not consider myself perfect and neither steadfast enough. As long as, you have a source and content is relevant, just go right at it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 09:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Saqib: that these articles must be updated on regular basis, as Khan's ministry moves forward. And for that I am up for any help, please let me know, which section or where you need expansion, as I am very good at that. Also, regarding 100 days plan, it is not based on when a party completes it 100 days, rather it is created the very day the leader is elected and as long as the 100 days plan/agenda is there and with substantial references it is good to go. However, it is important to note that, previously such plan is never presented so it is new as well, as compared to US. Nauriya, Let's talk - 14:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ps: @Saqib: and @SheriffIsInTown: I want you to both see this discussion on keeping the first lead paragraph of Imran Khan article simple.

Interesting @Mar4d:. @SheriffIsInTown: The Express Tribune is tracking Imran Khan's first 100 days in office so this page should help you. --Saqib (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib: Excellent source! Mar4d (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on Imran Khan

If you're telling me to go see pages would you like to visit Mamnoon Hussain,Justin Trudeau and Asif Ali Zardari? Your point is that every human being is the same? Hello my friend this is wikipedia. Excellency is used for head of states my friend and was used for ex head of states too. Please don't revert the edits again and again because your don't have a valid point — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaydbinumar (talk • contribs) 15:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaydbinumar: I have completely valid point, please do not add it again. These titles are creation of slave minds and against WP:NPOV. It should be removed from other pages as well. I have yet to see a source which addresses Khan as excellency. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SherrifIsInTown I have proposed inclusion of authentic view of Imran Khan that "Spread Betting" is not gambling just like "Buying/Selling" stocks. I thing this is encyclopedic value since he in position to make law in Pakistan. Please provide your opinion. It is in talk of Imran Khan. Adl786 (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited First 100 days of Imran Khan's prime ministership, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punjab Police (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Careful with WP:BLP at Fayaz-ul-Hasan Chohan

Additions such as this are skirting WP:BLP violation territory. For a statement like that to stand, it would require sources beyond a few news articles that read like opinion pieces. I think it's valid to mention criticism of the subject in the article, but it has to be done in such a way that clearly separates opinion from fact. I don't think your original contribution made that distinction. I found out about this through a request at RFPP. I have tried to reword it. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 08:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Airplaneman: The reason why I mentioned that he has "vulgar language" because he used equivalents of f-words on live TV and the sources I included attest to that as one of them put it But there is rude and then there is calling-a-party-leader-a-transgender rude. Not thinly veiled slurs either, but the cuss words of a boys' college playground scuffle. When a public figure uses such language and never regrets or apologizes or accepts that he has done something wrong then we are right to assume that the figure owns what he said and does not care whether his BLP mentions that as well or not.[1]
Several news stories and a couple of editorials appeared recently in difference Pakistani dailies following the latest twin incidents, brining plethora of details. Sheriff, you may want to dig some news article and see if you can find something of interest to add to this BLP. --Saqib (talk) 13:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The rudest man on TV?". www.pakistantoday.com.pk. Retrieved 29 August 2018.

Nomination of Zahid Ali (politician) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zahid Ali (politician) 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/Zahid Ali (politician) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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) 17:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indo pakistani war 1965

Hi i just wanted to bring this to your attention that as you are a senior member of Pakistani wikipedians, you need to do something to bring the article on indo pakistan war of 1965 back to neautrality. All the editors that discussed the issue on page are indian nationalists and they have provided only those references that claim indian victory and thus have changed inconclusive to indian victory in the result area. I would appreciate if you could open the talk page and have the discussion re opened so that people could not be misled by indian propaganda.2605:6001:E19B:B400:A548:2AB8:4026:7FD2 (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why cant he and the other user that you mentioned talk about india pakistan topics, but indian wikipedians can collectively propogate their agenda in all the disputed articles between india and Pakistan ?Saladin1987 03:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown and a number of other editors are topic-banned from the Indo-Pakistani conflict. Some of those editors are Indians, while others are Pakistanis, and still others have not shared their nationality publicly. This topic-ban has been unsuccessfully appealed to the arbitration committee, meaning that it isn't going to be removed anytime soon. If you feel any other editors are behaving badly in the ARBIPA area, feel free to report their behavior to WP:ANI or WP:AE. Vanamonde (talk) 05:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Khan

Respectfully, I have seen a pattern of combative and WP:OWN behavior from you at the Imran Khan article. I must say that I appreciate your work, and think you're a good contributor. I hope you will take this as constructive feedback. Here is what I mean:

I agree that the last two reversions were correct, but there is no reason to be so combative; it discourages collaboration and participation.

These are just a few examples. Again, I appreciate your hard work, I just hope you can be more open to collaboration. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 16:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Basilosauridae: I removed the content which was added by me initially and the reason was not that I am trying to own it, I had a valid reason as specified in the summary plus your restore, restored the name of the president who did not take office yet. Furthermore, It's always better to discuss the content dispute on the article talk. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I misunderstood the situation, sorry for that. I will ping you on talk page if I have any concerns in the future. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 17:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nabil Gabol

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Nabil Gabol 2. Just a compulsory notice regarding the editing issues with the article. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read your comments on ANI and wanted to thank you and let you to know its always pleasure working with people like you even we have a difference of opinion. --Saqib (talk) 07:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits on Siachen Glacier despite topic ban

Hi SheriffIsInTown, I saw that you are still editing Siachen Glacier, an article regularly vandalized by IPs and currently on my watchlist. While I see a message above, which says that you are currently topic banned from editing such articles (on conflicts between India and Pakistan), may I know if you can self-revert? regards --DBigXrayᗙ 13:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) SheriffIsInTown, the Siachen Glacier article itself probably doesn't entirely fall within the scope of your topic ban - although ownership is disputed we have a separate article (Siachen conflict) on it, so as long as you're not editing the geography article in the small section directly related to the conflict, I'd guess that most admins would not see a problem with it. It might be considered "pushing the edges" though, and it's a litigious subject area, so, you know, be careful. But to the specific edit: you filled a reference which supports information about the Indian military presence on the mountain, which does directly relate to the conflict, and would be in violation of your topic ban even by a very conservative interpretation. I see you've already self-reverted while I was typing this, though.
But DBigXray, this edit was limited to filling in the title of one reference, on one article, one time. We don't implement topic bans so that users subject to a ban can be harassed over every edit they make. Please find something better to do. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ivan, You are clearly mistaken here, this article very much falls into the dispute, Well this article even has an entire section that is titled Siachen_Glacier#Dispute for folks like you who are not familiar with the topic area. Given you have agreed that it was a topic ban violation,[65], In place of modifying the definition of the topic ban scope claiming "productive edits", please familiarize yourself with WP:BMB. If you have any more misunderstanding of WP:ARBIPA, then you can seek clarification on WP:ARCA as this talk page is not the right place for that. regards. DBigXrayᗙ 13:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: ARBIPA topic ban clarification and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited NA-269 (Khuzdar), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Balochistan National Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Defaultsort

Hi and thanks for all Pakistani biographies you've been creating recently. I noticed you don't use the ((DEFAULTSORT)) template in these biographies. Is this intentional as defaultsort doesn't apply? I'm not familiar with Pakistani names so I'm not sure if they are all patronymic or if there are first names and last names. If it is the case of the latter, the defaultsort template should be added to the biographies to sort the individuals by the last names in categories per WP:SUR. Bennv3771 (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bennv3771: Most if not all names in Pakistan are petronymic with an optional title of respect being used in the beginning and an optional family surname being used in the end. For example the subject you reviewed Aghaz Ikramullah Gandapur has Aghaz as a given name, Ikramullah is father's given name and Gandapur is a family surname. Then some people do not use father's name at all and add Khan or name of a personality considered respected in Islam or some other name at the place of father's name. For example Malik Sohail Khan uses Malik as title of respect, Sohail is given name, Khan is free form, just used instead of father's name and Kamrial being used in the lead is the family surname. Some people use title of respect at the end of name same as a family surname. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow that is confusing, but thanks for the explanation! If I understand this correctly, it seems ((DEFAULTSORT)) would apply to a few of these biographies like Aghaz Ikramullah Gandapur, since Gandapur is a family surname. In that case, it would be adding ((DEFAULTSORT:Gandapur, Aghaz Ikramullah)) such that the article is sorted by his family name, Gandapur. Anyway, I'll leave it to you to decide if WP:SUR applies to any of these bios since you're the expert here compared to me. Bennv3771 (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bennv3771: That's not all though, I missed on some twists and turns! 😀 Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hello. Help please post this article on Wikipedia (Draft:Dmitry Green). Thank you very much.Namerst (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Namerst: It's already denied by community for lack of reliable sources, I will not push for it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can find more sources. What exactly do you need?Namerst (talk) 04:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

“Others”

At what point do candidates fall under the “Others” category in the election boxes as per your method? Thanks... маsтегрнатаLк 07:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Masterpha: I am using a logic of competitiveness with the candidate right above plus I also try to make sure that "Others" have less votes in total than the last named candidate. For example, if first candidate have 14,000, second has 12,000, third has 10,000, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh all have 3,000 each, I will list all of them as their total combined votes are 12,000 which is more than 10,000 of the last named candidate but if first candidate had 100,000, second had 98,000, third 20,000, fourth 10,000 and fifth 500 then third is not competitive with the second and total votes of last three fall way behind the second place candidate then I will not list those even if I listed candidates with 3,000 votes in other constituency and here there was a candidate with 20,000 votes. 3,000 votes were more competitive to 10,000 votes than 20,000 are with 98,000! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

613

Please stoo reverting and use the talk page. It's clear you are not familiar with the subject. It's also clear you didn't see the references.Sir Joseph (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made it a little clearer. In the future you might want to tag rather than delete. You need to give people time to fix.Sir Joseph (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir Joseph: When you can fix it, you can restore it. Most of the content you restored is still unsourced. The content stays in the history. You cannot require folks to tag the content for your lethargy. I can just be extra nice to you and allow you some time if I want to otherwise I am in my rights to remove any content which is unsourced on first sight. How much time do you need to add sources to the content? Let me know and I will put it on my calendar. I just do not like when people restore the content and give bogus reasons like It is just the list and 80% is already sourced and try to prove that I am just someone who is brainless or blind! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you should be tagging things first. Especially after you're reverted. The article had sources and yes, a list of books discussing the issue doesn't need to be sourced. It's a list of books, and most of the books have a link to that article's page. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir Joseph:I tend to disagree on all your points here. I am under no obligation to tag the content. You cannot keep unsourced content, Period. If you have sources, add them otherwise it is just a hearsay and deserves removal! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) @Sir Joseph: according to our policies, the WP:BURDEN is on you to provide sources for any content that is challenged by being removed, before you restore it. If you think the existing sourcing is adequate you should try to explain that on the article's talk page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article was written a long time ago and the sources were at the end of the paragraph in parenthesis, not in ref tags. I added ref tags to those. As for lists, again, the following paragraph basically said, "these commentaries discuss it..." and then lists the commentaries, and those are wikilinked for the most part. We don't need a ref to say that. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Replied at Talk:613 commandments! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Shrike (talk) 07:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Debresser (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are subject to editing restrictions

By consensus of the recent discussion at ANI, you are now subject to two editing restrictions placed by the Wikipedia community. Effective immediately, and for an indefinite time, you are:

  1. banned from interacting with Debresser. Nb. this restriction is not mutual (interaction ban).
  2. topic-banned from editing content relating to Judaism, broadly construed (topic ban).

You may be blocked without warning if you make any edit that breaches either the interaction ban or the topic ban.

In future, if you wish to request that these restrictions be lifted, softened, or changed then you may do so at WP:ANI, the same venue where the restrictions were handed down. It is important that any such request is focussed, brief, and fact-based; using such requests as a means of circumventing the restrictions may itself be a sanctionable breach.

These restrictions have been formally logged. Please contact me if you have any questions. AGK ■ 16:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: Is there a timeline standard i.e. standard wait time to appeal these restrictions or one can appeal anytime? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Formally, community-imposed editing restrictions come with no conditions regulating how frequent or soon there can be an appeal. Informally (and by no means as an instruction), I think that you should wait 6 or 12 months before appealing. Hope this helps, AGK ■ 22:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Before it gets archived I think you should be aware of this. Cheers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: Damn, many fans of an incompetent editor! 😀 Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Sara Hannan) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Sara Hannan.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process.

need some additional citations

To reply, leave a comment here and ping me.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Razer(talk) 21:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Washington members-elect

Just a heads-up: "platforms" aren't generally used to describe political leanings in the U.S. (and it would be the platform of the Democratic Party, anyway). In Washington state, politicians are elected in nonpartisan elections with party preferences, which they generally are/become members of. Also, all dates should be in MDY format, per U.S. standards. SounderBruce 00:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, where are you getting the full name for My-Linh Thai? None of the places I checked (elections results/materials, newspapers) add Thi to her name. SounderBruce 03:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SounderBruce: I got it from an offline reliable source. Anyway, I would like to thank you for expanding the articles, I thought who cares about state reps, I will come back and expand/improve upon them at my own leisure once I am done creating all of them 😀 Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Balochistan National Party/meta/shortname

Template:Balochistan National Party/meta/shortname has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Barabari Party Pakistan/meta/color

Template:Barabari Party Pakistan/meta/color has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

The 2018 Cure Award
In 2018 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: It's definitely an honor to receive the medical award by the legendary Doc of Wikipedia himself ☺! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism t-ban and interaction ban

Lifted. See [66]--regentspark (comment) 21:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of motion

The Arbitration Committee is considering a motion which concerns you. It can be viewed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Motion: India-Pakistan. Bradv🍁 03:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan request for amendment

The following motion has passed:

SheriffIsInTown's topic ban from pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan is lifted, subject to a probationary period lasting six months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the topic ban as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the topic ban is to be considered permanently lifted.

-- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

Hello, SheriffIsInTown. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

- LouisAragon (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

legislators

Just a reminder to give more complete references than just the name of the newspaper. It should be easier for you to do it when writing the article than to add it later. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your efforts to create bios on newly elected legislators. --Saqib (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Lubna Saleem Pervez

Hello, SheriffIsInTown,

Thank you for creating Lubna Saleem Pervez.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thanks for starting this article! To improve the quality, please add some more information if you know more along with supporting references! Happy editing!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Snowycats)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Snowycats (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Annual DS Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 21:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CAA Protest

hi, I noticed, that you have restored your content on Imran Khan on this page, despite me removing it explaining my removal in edit summary. Requesting you to self revert and make a case on the talk page. FYI this article is on WP:1RR and you are not supposed to edit war. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 21:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its a clear violation of WP:1RR. I am surprised to see user with more than 30k edits is doing such kind of misleading edits, and is highly irresponsible act and will be considered as vandalism. Please refrain from such in future. Dey subrata (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pakistan Army (Amendment) Act, 2020, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chief of Army Staff (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) 11:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

No consensus on talkpage, so fix this.--39.50.184.44 (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also see to it that how did such a sub-heading got into a country article without consensus & that too under Government and politics section.--39.50.184.44 (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a very nice way of requesting something. Do it yourself!! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that the article is extended-protected.39.50.184.44 (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do realize and also realize that you realize that too and I also realize that you knew how to find and editor to spam their page but you do not somehow know how to circumvent the page protection. Stop spamming my page and request an edit on article talk page or create a user account and editthen, stop spamming my page! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged

Will do Tiderolls 19:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Anoosh Masood Chaudhry

On 16 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Anoosh Masood Chaudhry, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Anoosh Masood Chaudhry completed a medical degree before entering law enforcement and becoming an assistant superintendent of police? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anoosh Masood Chaudhry. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week

Hello there. This is an invitation to join the 50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week. £250 (c. $310) is being given away in May, June and July with £20 worth of prizes to give away every week for most articles destubbed. Each week there is a different region of focus, including one week dedicated to South-South East Asia, which includes Pakistan, though half the prize will still be rewarded for articles on any subject. There's a potential £120 to be won in total for destubbing on any subject or region of your choice. Sign up if you want to contribute at least one of the weeks or support the idea! † Encyclopædius 11:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Kaleem Imam moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Syed Kaleem Imam, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox royalty

Pease don't add reign lengths to this infobox. Infoboxes should be simple and succinct. The exact number of days of someone's reign is trivial and undue. Thanks. DrKay (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay: I do not think it's trivial and undue. It was not just days, it was years followed by days for less than a year. I thought it was a good idea (an innovative idea rather) so if someone wants to know how long a particular monarch reigned they can quickly know without trying to calculate? That's what encyclopedia is there for, to make information easily accessible and dispersible. You just reverted all of them. Reverts should be exercised with caution and reserved for instances where information is not factual. You should give it another thought. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Para 66

An article that you have been involved in editing, rather created—Para 66—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. USaamo (t@lk) 06:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting edit examination and opinion

Greetings,

Please do visit Talk:Cynthia D. Ritchie#Slander of Benazir Bhutto to examine discussed edits, if you find topic interested requesting your opinion, there.

For neutrality purpose opinion request is being made to users who significantly edited different sides of Pakistani political spectrum articles.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Muhammad Qasim Khan

Notice

The article Muhammad Qasim Khan 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. Helen (let’s talk) 16:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict...please fill out my survey?

Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.

For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.

I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 8 August 2021.

Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.

Thanks so much,

Sarah Sanbar

Sarabnas I'm researching Wikipedia Questions? 11:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flexible-fuel vehicle

Flexible-fuel vehicle has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FAR notice

I have nominated Chadderton for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 03:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FAR for Demosthenes

I have nominated Demosthenes for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 04:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed

Hello SheriffIsInTown! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II talk 17:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LaKeySha Bosley moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, LaKeySha Bosley, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Boleyn (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:User Cyber security

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:User Cyber security, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other test edits you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions of constituencies

PLease give your opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pakistani politics.Ameen Akbar (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, SheriffIsInTown. Thank you for your work on Anwaar Hussain. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hello my friend! Good day to you. Thanks for creating the article, I have marked it as reviewed. Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|SunDawn)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 21:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the leader?

You, wrongly, inserted Gohar Khan as the 'new' PTI leader and, also refer to Shebaz Sharif as the former leader of PML-N. The Shebaz Sharif insertion as leader on the 2023 (now,2024) Pakistan General Elections Wiki Page have been corrected to Nawaz Sharif, when the former was still Prime Minister of Pakistan (but not without angry resistance from some pundits). The correct name finally prevailed, the leader or PML-N aways have been Nawaz Sharif. In the last 4 years,the leadership exercised from afar, London, UK. The letter 'N' of PML-N stands for 'Nawaz', did you ignored that? In the PML-N official website, Nawaz Sharif holds the title of 'Emperor', the king of kings. His image come first,above all, the second one is of Shebaz Sharif. Imran Khan is the founder of PTI and, for a long time, his sole representative on National Assembly. It was him, alone, against the world. Gohar is his lawyer and it was during a professional visit that Imran Khan, singlehandly, by surprise, APPOINTED him, a just a grassroot PTI member, as the PTI Caretaker Chairman, for bureaucratic electoral purposes. The reason is that he is one of a few that can have direct access to him and assume the role of his spokesperson and beside that, to avoid rivalry between the top party members .

In Gohar own account, he became 'speechles s'after this incident, it was something completely unexpected . You are confounding the concept of Leadership, Presidency and Premiership, applied to Pakistan Party politics. They can be all refer to the same person or to 3 different individuals. The (actual) President of Pakistan, Alvi, recently said: "Imran Khan aways will be my leader". Do you think that the President of Pakistan is 'The Leader of the Nation'? Shebaz Sharif, during his Premiership have been, for days on his big brother Hide Park mansion, purposely, to 'receive instructions and guidance'. Isn't perfectly normal? The leader of PPP is called 'President' of the Party, instead of Chairman. Gohar is the CARETAKER CHAIRMAN of PTI, as have been stabilished by local media ( see reference notes 3 and 4,of 2 December, on the Nationwide Section of Electoral Polls, 2024 Pakistan General Elections page. Gohar is no leader of PTI. Absolutely not! 193.117.132.123 (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, SheriffIsInTown. Thank you for your work on Zulfiqar Ali Sangi. DreamRimmer, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Take out sindhhighcourt.gov.pk from the references, and let's place it in a new section called External links.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|DreamRimmer)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

– DreamRimmer (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PTI's inclusion in the 2024 election page

Hi Sheriff, thank you for your recent edits. I just wanted to discuss the removal of PTI from the infobox and the introduction to the 2024 election page. I fondly remember back in 2018 when PMLN had been subject to substantial intervention against them from 'the boys', you were the contributor who had been at the forefront in trying to highlight this intervention against them. You were correct to argue for this, (and I must admit, I was wrong and acting in a politically biased manner when I tried to play this down).

Nevertheless, the pressure that PTI is facing against them is at a level much greater than what occurred in 2018 against PMLN. PTI (more specifically, the factor of Imran Khan) is undoubtedly very relevant to these elections. There deserves, at the very least, to be a mention of this at the start of the page. Thank you for all of your work! маsтегрнатаLк 14:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning the challenges they encounter amid the context of the backing they've received from “the boys” in the past is acceptable, given that all statements are substantiated by reliable sources. It would be more preferable if it is placed within its dedicated section. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at precedent from 2018, the context of the election with regards to issues like this have very much been highlighted at the page start. маsтегрнатаLк 23:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was included post-election, relying on a comprehensive analysis available from credible sources. We can undertake a similar approach once the elections conclude and trustworthy sources confirm that these actions were aimed at influencing the elections. Currently, there's limited evidence supporting this claim; on the contrary, there's substantial evidence against it, such as their involvement in the cypher case and the events on 9th May. Once credible sources highlighting their victimization to keep them away from the election emerge, we can provide a balanced account, considering other prominent cases like the cypher and 9th May incident, Tosha Khana case, iddah, etc. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just mindlessly run the URL "refill" script. You have to inspect and think about the results

The change you made to Chiapas in special:diff/1196633029 is nonsensical and damaging. You "filled in" details about these URLs by replacing a description of an excel document with the heading from a 404 page in spanish, and the title of a PDF article with "domain for sale". You're making a huge number of these edits (running a bot, or just a meat-bot?), but please stop. If the rest are anything like this one, you're leaving nothing but destruction behind you, and making the results much harder for anyone else who cares to figure out and clean up after later. –jacobolus (t) 03:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacobolus Appreciate your message. I make an effort to avoid proceeding with edits if I notice an issue, but this time I missed it. A straightforward revert is sufficient, and I see that you've already taken care of it. It's important not to cease contributions due to the fear of making an occasional mistake among numerous positive edits. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to check every change carefully to make sure it makes sense. In this kind of case you need to actually click all the links, think about what claims in the article the source is supposed to be supporting and whether that is happening, etc. I haven't checked your other changes in detail, and don't have the time to waste on doing so, but in my opinion nobody can possibly do a careful job at your recent pace. Please either slow down or just leave it alone.
These "refill" edits are generally low-value because the core information needed to find the resource was already there before the "refill" edit, so even in the best case they just save readers a bit of time and attention. But if they make a hash of the previous information, it's a big mess that is often hard to recover from without significant detective work, which can waste a huge amount of some future editor's time.
In this specific case, one of the URLs had the full bibliographic information about a journal article, and you replaced it with nonsense instead of putting it into a "cite journal" template or similar.
If even a few percent of these edits are similar to this, then the total effect is net-negative. –jacobolus (t) 03:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if it seems like I'm giving you a hard time; that's not my goal. I'm a bit burned still from the "ReferenceExpander" fiasco involving thousands of pages with significantly damaged citations which took at least hundreds of hours of work for a volunteer cleanup crew to mop up, and have in general had a poor experience with editors wielding these kinds of automated scripts. We want to try to protect this site that people have dumped untold hours of work into writing and curating. –jacobolus (t) 04:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a spot check, I looked at special:diff/1196784339. There you wrecked one of the citations on The Crystal Palace by removing the author name and title. Can you please go fix it, and also go double-check every other one of these "refill" edits you have made in the recent past? I really don't have time to double-check them all, but making a mess of citations semi-automatically at high speed is a huge problem. Please stop doing that. –jacobolus (t) 16:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the edit on The Crystal Palace immediately after making it, and I didn't observe the author being removed. Although the title was altered, I personally didn't find any issue with the new title. If you find it problematic, feel free to change it to whatever you think is appropriate. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The link was to 'Jennifer Davit, "Victoria: The Reigning Queen of Waterlilies", Virtual Herbarium', including the author, title, and source. You replaced this with title="Victoria amazonica". This is a completely unacceptable change. Please go figure out what kind of source this is and properly fix the citation, including the author name and correct title in the Wikipedia article. –jacobolus (t) 16:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to fix this one? Or do I have to do it? Edit: thanks! –jacobolus (t) 17:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Victoria amazonica was from same PDF. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In another one, special:diff/1196675896, the change was to take several duplicate references and instead use <ref name="auto"/> to combine them. The name "auto" is meaningless; couldn't you come up with a better name? Actually clicking the link reveals that this is a journal article which had its author improperly stuck into the "title" field, the journal name improperly stuck into the "publisher" field, and other metadata left out. If you spend a few minutes, it's not hard to just actually properly fix this kind of citation. –jacobolus (t) 16:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with "Auto," but if you're not comfortable with the reference name, you're welcome to change it to your preference. Or better yet, you can take the onus by filling them manually, if you do not like my way. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your way is lazy and not valuable. These automatic changes that you are doing at a rate of 1 per minute provide next to no benefit, while sometimes doing significant harm. You need to slow down and actually click the links and think about them, or else just stop. What you are doing now is disruptive to the Wikipedia project, and wastes other people's time. –jacobolus (t) 16:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've already reduced my pace, please stop bothering me. I make an effort to contribute in my own way, and you can do the same in your own way. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be more explicit: Please immediately desist from doing edits the way you are currently doing, and we can discuss ways of improving your method to avoid causing damage. If you persist at these type of edits, I am going to have to escalate, e.g. to the administrator noticeboard, and possibly get you blocked from editing while this gets sorted out. What you are doing right now is making a mess that other people will have to clean up. –jacobolus (t) 16:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite agree with your perspective. While there may have been some minor oversights, the majority of my edits were made to benefit the project. For instance, your objection to combining instances of the same reference under the name "auto" seems unfounded, as any issues with author or publisher details were pre-existing and not caused by my edit. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you agree or not, you need to stop. I clicked on about 10 of your edits: 2 of them actively removed important information, about 2 added useful information, and the other 6 were pointless twiddling that didn't accomplish anything (but also didn't really do any harm). That's not good enough. Any kind of automated or semi-automated process needs to have a nontrivial benefit and an error rate more like <1%. At a 20% error rate, your process is doing significantly more harm than good. Other Wikipedians have put a lot of time and work into finding and linking to sources, and trampling on their work because you can't be bothered to click and think about the links is an act of great disrespect to their efforts. –jacobolus (t) 17:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How in the world do you consider special:diff/1196776514 to be a "fix"? Please go actually fix this one. The PDF should not be linked as "[1]". If you click it you can see that the title is "Easter Ellen Cupp: First Woman to receive a Ph.D. in Oceanography from Scripps Institution of Oceanography", and there's various other metadata clearly described there. –jacobolus (t) 16:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another example: special:diff/1196570324 changed the title of a Korean newspaper article (weirdly the site has two titles, but the replacement chosen here is the less useful of the two) and improperly stuck it in 'cite web' with no author name and a domain name instead of the newspaper name (but did helpfully add a date); inappropriately stuck the text of a Dutch law into 'cite web' with the Dutch ministry of internal affairs listed as the author's first name and the department listed as the author's last name; inappropriately stuck a United Nations handbook about refugees into 'cite web' and bizarrely stuck "Source:" as a prefix of the title, with no listed publisher. –jacobolus (t) 20:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another example: special:diff/1196572009 took a specific URL about "Landfill Inventory Management Ontario – How Ontario regulates Landfills" and replaced it with a generic URL to the Ontario ministry of parks, presumably because the website changed their URL scheme; and took a link titled "Multiple Purpose industries using landfills for energy" from 2012 and replaced it with the name of the 2024 website that took over the domain. (This should be considered a dead link, and the current link not active.) –jacobolus (t) 20:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another example: special:diff/1196571855 took the author, title, and specific section of the cited ancient book "Stephanus of Byzantium, Ethnica, §D230.14", and inappropriately stuck it in 'cite web' with title=ToposText, website=topostext.org as the only metadata. –jacobolus (t) 20:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another example: special:diff/1196571188 took a 2007 help page about a Google Books feature and replaced it with a generic page about the Google Books project which no longer supports the claim in the article. –jacobolus (t) 20:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was changed from [67]https://books.google.com/googlebooks/mylibrary/ to [68]https://books.google.com/googlebooks/about/ exactly same content. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this was a web page with meaningful support of the Wikipedia claim in 2007. At some point since then, Google got rid of the specific "my library" help page and started redirecting it to the generic about page. To continue to support the claim made in the Wikipedia article you need to switch to an archived version of the original link from 2007, not just change the URL to the worthless generic page it has since been redirected to. When you do the latter, it makes it impossible for a future editor who clicks the link trying to verify the article to figure out what happened. The history of the generic "about" link does not contain any relevant information. So that future editor has to go back in the history of the Wikipedia page to before your destructive edit to understand what happened. That detective work is much harder than it would be if the original URL is preserved in Wikipedia.
If you are going to be making this kind of citation-modifying edit, you can't do them at a pace of one every minute or two. It's just impossible to be careful or correct at that pace. Instead, you have to read the article text, click the link, check if the claim in the article was verified by the source now at the link, and then if not you have to think carefully about why and either figure out how to recover the originally intended source, find a new source, or change the article to match available sources. –jacobolus (t) 21:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, in an ideal scenario, it should have been done, but my intention was simply to prevent leaving it as bare. Essentially, the content remains the same as before, with the addition of the title. I didn't introduce any issues; rather, the problem was pre-existing. I presumed you were pointing out flaws in my work. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the content is not the same as before. You have sneakily destroyed the previous (few years stale) content and replaced it with something worthless and confusing. If you can't do this work carefully (which might take 5–20 minutes per link you fix), please don't do it at all. What you have been doing the past few days is, on balance, very harmful to the Wikipedia project. There's no inherent problem with having "bare links", but there is a huge problem with removing citation metadata, changing URLs to new ones that don't contain the original source, etc.
Your intentions are irrelevant to whether you should keep doing this. I understand you are trying to help. I am hoping I can convince you to change your process so that your work is actually helpful. If I thought you were being malicious or had no chance of improving, I would be running out to have you immediately blocked. –jacobolus (t) 21:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was here specifically talking about the Google Books reference. The previous url with “mylibrary” at the end points to same content as the new link with “about” at the end. Nothing changed whatsoever. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the previous URL is a dead link which used to (in 2007) point at a page which verified the article text. At some point Google eliminated the page, and now it redirects to a worthless page which does not verify the article text. If you want to "fix" this dead link you need to replace it with an archived version from 2007. –jacobolus (t) 21:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of an edit which is pointless but at least not actively harmful, special:diff/1196649530 took a link to a scan of a 1965 book which was just a bare link with the book title as link text, and inappropriately stuck it into "cite web", still with the book title as the "title" attribute, but no other metadata added. –jacobolus (t) 20:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another example since your last comment: special:diff/1196952966 took a DOI that already had a linked title and instead of wrapping it in the ((doi)) template or converting to a citation template with a doi parameter, re-copied the title into the URL for the DOI so now the same title is written twice in a row. This is confusing and unhelpful to readers. –jacobolus (t) 00:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another example that doesn't do damage per se, but is completely pointless: special:diff/1196940088 takes a "bare link" that had no link text and instead uses the vague link text "Weather", without filling in any other metadata or bothering to put this into a footnote. The result is not compliant with the manual of style for footnotes/citations. –jacobolus (t) 00:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because the title on the page is “Weather”, what would you put in instead? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, you need to put this citation into a footnote, not just leave it as a bare link at the end of the sentence. Next, you should probably use a citation template to match the prevailing style elsewhere on the page. In this case the website is Turks And Caicos Tourism and the publisher is the Turks And Caicos Tourist Board. Overall this somewhat buggy tourism marketing website is a pretty crummy source, and the ideal would be to go find a better source for the same claim, e.g. from some meteorology expert or official government weather statistics page. –jacobolus (t) –jacobolus (t) 00:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The link lacked context, so I included the title, considering it an enhancement. Criticizing someone for making improvements is unfair. Even a minor enhancement should be acknowledged. If it doesn't meet your standards, feel free to enhance it further instead of spending time on my talk page. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The changed version is not any more useful to anyone than the original version. Whether the link text is a number or the vague name "Weather" is not meaningful to readers. Both versions fall far short of meeting the manual of style's guidelines.
Please do not bother to make this kind of change at all; it wastes other people's time checking it for essentially no benefit. If you are doing hundreds of edits and roughly a third of them are totally pointless like this, roughly a third are marginally beneficial and roughly a third are actively harmful (my very rough estimates based on skimming without carefully counting; could be off by a factor of 2 or something), then overall you are significantly damaging the project. Wikipedia as a project would be much better off if you just entirely stop trying make this particular mix of edits. Let an editor who cares and is willing to put real work in "fix" these citations.
If you are going to try to "fix" citations you should actually fix them. You need to (a) familiarize yourself with expected conventions for citation and article style, (b) read the article text being supposedly validated by the citation, (c) click the link and open the source in your browser and figure out its actual human-meaningful metadata, (d) read some of the source, and most importantly (e) use your human judgement to decide what metadata is needed and whether the citation is correct. If you are just executing an automated script without any human care or attention involved, that does not provide value.
Fixing broken citations takes real serious work. It can't be foisted off onto a bot or script. –jacobolus (t) 01:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example that is moderately valuable, but still not great: special:diff/1196937467 takes a bare URL and turns it into a cite web template with the non-MOS-compliant all-caps title "ALAIN MOUSSI DISCUSSES WORKING WITH MIKE TYSON AND JEAN-CLAUDE VAN DAMME IN "KICKBOXER: RETALIATION" || FIGHTHYPE.COM". If you bothered to click through the link you could fill out a bunch of relevant metadata, including: title=Alain Moussi Discusses Working with Mike Tyson and Jean-Claude Van Damme in Kickboxer: Retaliation |last=Crawford |first=Percy |date=February 14, 2018 –jacobolus (t) 00:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the title on the page is all caps, I manually add it in all caps as well that is why I left it as-is. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:ALLCAPS you should not use all caps for this type of title. –jacobolus (t) 00:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, good to know. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another type of edit which is not actively harmful but also not helpful and would be better to skip all-else-equal because it wastes other editors' time checking it: the only thing done in special:diff/1196917047 is to arbitrarily swap the order of the "title" and "url" template parameters (note that the edit summary "Filled in 1 bare reference(s)" does not accurately describe what this edit did). The "title" here, "Buddy Holly & The Crickets – March 1958 « American Rock n Roll The UK Tours" is not right: it combines both the page title and the website/publisher name, with a poor choice of symbol between them. If you wanted to improve this citation you could split the title from the publisher or website, add year=2024, and ideally check that the source verifies the claim in the article and then add an access-date parameter. –jacobolus (t) 01:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The title remains unchanged; only the order of the parameters was adjusted, with the ideal sequence placing the URL before the title. Kindly focus on highlighting significant issues. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no value in swapping the order of these parameters. There is no a priori "ideal sequence". (But if I had to pick one, I would put the URL after other parameters every time, so to my mind at least this ordering is strictly further from "ideal".) My point is, if you're going to modify this citation at all, you should actually fix the problem with it – namely that the title is wrong – not just make pointless whitespace changes or re-order the parameters in a way not matching any other citations on the same page. If you are going to make this kind of pointless edit you should at the very least mark it as a 'minor' edit and accurately describe it in the edit summary, something like "exchanged the order of the URL and title citation template parameters". –jacobolus (t) 01:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another type of example, special:diff/1196965452. This is a partly helpful and partly harmful edit. About the changes to the Google Books links: on the upside you added an author and publication date to one book (but not the other) and a publisher to both books; on the so-so side, books should always be "cite book" rather than "cite web" and you should always include the author, year of publication, title, publisher, and optionally ISBN (the "via" parameter is unnecessary in my opinion but you can have it if you want); on the downside you removed page numbers from both of these citations. When someone cites a specific page in a hundreds-of-pages-long book that dramatically helps others to track down the citation, and removing page numbers from this kind of citation is a strictly unacceptable change, even if they are still sort of indicated by the URLs. (Unfortunately Google Books doesn't show the content that they used to show; if you want you can also add a url-access=limited or url-access=subscription parameter to indicate this, or if you really want to help readers you can try to find a more accessible link, e.g. from the internet archive). –jacobolus (t) 04:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page numbers were added in later edits. As an experienced editor, I'm proficient in manually adding various citations. However, during specific instances when quick edits are more feasible, I aimed to contribute, even in situations where performing tedious work is challenging. This approach allowed me to be helpful within short time spans. Despite understanding the concern, I maintain that the majority of my edits were improvements. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 05:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm telling you that whether you personally felt like you were making a net improvement or not is not the relevant criterion. There's really never a "specific instance when quick edits are more feasible". You have to actually carefully check this type of edit, every time.
It is significantly more helpful for the project if you just do 1 single edit, but have it be careful and correct and properly make a fix for whatever you were looking at, than if you do 30 edits but have even 3 of them cause significant problems. ( Frankly it's better for the project if you do zero edits than make any number of edits with an error rate as high as you are making in the past few days.)
In the latter case where there is a nontrivial proportion of mistakes or regressions, you end up wasting probably 5x more of other people's time doing a double check of everything than the time you spent yourself, and this distracts from whatever other valuable thing they could be doing instead (including e.g. making a few of the same type of citation fixes). –jacobolus (t) 05:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this scenario: I encounter a woman walking naked in frigid temperatures, and I provide her with a large piece of cloth to cover herself, addressing the immediate need. I explain that I could only offer that at the moment, and for additional items, a store visit is necessary. Now, you, as my neighbor, start demanding more, shouting that she needs a panty, a bra, pants, a shirt, a jacket, a hat, socks, and shoes. I clarify that my intention was to address the basic issue with the cloth; however, you persist, insisting on adding more details like author, publisher, date, and access date. My primary goal is to add a title at the very least, ensuring no empty URLs, given my time constraints. If you have the capacity to include additional information, you are welcome to do so, but you continue to assert that the approach is imperfect, emphasizing the need for more details. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 07:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This analogy is insultingly absurd, and you also seem to be more interested in a weird fantasy about naked women than talking about the serious project of improving the encyclopedia. You're wasting my time with this. Please stop doing further edits of this type until you can explain clearly and convincingly why you won't make a significant proportion of mistakes going forward. A wikipedia page with an imperfect citation is not a frigid naked person on the verge of getting frostbite. –jacobolus (t) 07:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, jacobolus, your critiques are insultingly absurd,
Throwin' shade on edits, claiming it's all unheard.
Talkin' 'bout refill tool, but I got a rule,
Improving citations, keepin' it cool.


You say it's nonsensical, damaging my flow,
But I fix those bare links, let the references grow.
Check my pace, slow down, but I'm on a race,
Balancing speed and quality, finding my space.


You want names and titles, you want it precise,
But my edits are clean, adding value, no vice.
You're burned from the past, with a cleanup crew blast,
But I'm here for the future, improving things fast.


You call it disruptive, say it's a mess,
But I'm just trying to contribute, no need to stress.
I get it, you're upset, from the fiasco you met,
But don't insult my efforts, let's make a bet.


I reviewed my edits, I got my own style,
Combining references, it's worth the while.
You say "refill" is low, but it's a good show,
Saving time for readers, making info flow.


You're talking escalation, administrator notation,
But I'm just here to fix, not for confrontation.
Your detective work's hard, but I play my card,
Making Wikipedia better, it ain't that hard.


So, jacobolus, let's find common ground,
In this editing space, where solutions are found.
Insultingly absurd, your claims are blurred,
Let's keep it civil, in this Wiki world.

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need a poem/rap. What you need is to do every citation-fixing edit carefully. If you can do every edit carefully (which takes explicit manual checking of every source vs. the article text, meaning you have to spend at least a few minutes on each one), then we have no problem and you can continue trying to do this work. If you cannot do every edit carefully but instead make a significant number of damaging mistakes in trying to be fast, then we have a serious problem and you need to stop. If you cannot stop making significant numbers of sloppy mistakes on your own, then people will be forced to take whatever steps necessary to stop you, because such behavior is disruptive and damaging to the project. –jacobolus (t) 15:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From a technical perspective, wrapping a bare URL in an empty citation template and filling in a |title= parameter does add a tiny amount of value, because it will queue the reference URL for archiving next time Internet Archive Bot crawls the article.
From a reader perspective, adding just a title actually makes a bare URL worse, because any information I could have got from examining the URL is now hidden behind a usually less informative hyperlink that I'll have to long press (on mobile) or mouseover (on desktop) to view.
From an editor perspective, adding just a title doesn't save the next person much work – they'll still have to examine the source and add the missing fields to the citation – but it hides the problem of the reference being super uninformative by removing the article from maintenance categories like Category:Articles with bare URLs for citations from September 2022 (6,493).
We don't have tracking categories for articles that have citation templates with just a |title= parameter, but maybe we should. Folly Mox (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SheriffIsInTown, Please stop generating crap poems and analogies using WP:LLM. WP:CIR and if you don't bother communicating with a human in a proper way then take a break and come back when you have time. 59.103.119.14 (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I took a look at your actual reFill contributions with today's UTC date:

So of the edits made today, maybe up to half didn't require any action after the reFill edits, although they could be filled out more fully. The other half needed more work. Like I said, it's a good starting point, but just leaving reFill edits as they come out of the script doesn't produce good results. Folly Mox (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am running out of patience with you, SheriffIsInTown. What you are doing is continuing to make a mess which will waste significant amounts of other people's (or ideally your) time to clean up. You need to immediately stop making this type of lazy edit. This is the last warning I am going to give you before requesting that an administrator temporarily block you from editing.

Essentially every recent edit of yours is either useless or actively bad. Nearly every one of the above edits needs to be fixed by someone. Would you please fix them all yourself, and report back when you are done? If you can't figure out how to fix one of these, you can ask for help. You need to immediately stop making more edits of this type. –jacobolus (t) 16:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: It looks like @Folly Mox did some of the fixing work for you (e.g. fixing the court case citation). That gets you partly off the hook for fixing the past day's edits. @SheriffIsInTown would you please now go back through every one of your previous refill citation changes, however far back those go (weeks?), and fix them all? I'm guessing there are hundreds, so this is probably going to take you hours of work, but you need to first do that before you make any further "refill" changes, to demonstrate (a) that you understand the problem, and (b) that you are willing to put the effort into making this right so you don't waste more of other editors' time. It might help if you start by taking your edit history and turn it into a checklist, then explicitly mark off every time you verify/fix one of your previous changes, so you can make sure you don't miss any. If you need help with any of the cleanup, feel free to ask more experienced editors, who are happy to help you or explain anything you are confused about. –jacobolus (t) 17:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops looks like we did two independent reviews of the same set of diffs at the same time! Folly Mox (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Folly Mox You're nicer than I am about this kind of stuff (and a bit more clued in with the community). Maybe you have some recommendations to help editors who want to convert bare links to citation templates avoid making messes. –jacobolus (t) 20:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My advice to people who want to improve bare URLs to complete citation templates is: always do it manually unless you have a DOI. The DOI will usually point to a canonical reference with structured metadata that the citation scripts like ReFill, Citoid, and Citation bot can understand and use.
Most URLs are not like this. All the reference generation scripts do the same thing for generic webpages: they just look at the HTML metatags in the <head>...</head> element. Usually these are wrong or incomplete.
There are certain exceptions, but for the most part, almost every automated citation to a webpage will need manual cleanup. The reference generation scripts are a good starting point: they create valid template syntax and try to fill in as many fields as they can.
But that's all it is: a starting point. Don't just run a script and publish the change and move on. If it were that easy we'd have bots do it. Have the source open in another tab, or another window next to the Wikipedia editing interface. Look at the webpage and compare it to the generated citation template, and then make the necessary adjustments. Folly Mox (talk) 10:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And yeah, last year this time we had someone running a different citation generation script at high speed without double checking the results, and it resulted in thousands of errors, the contributor being indefinitely blocked, and the citation script disabled at MfD. We put thousands of hours, not hundreds, cleaning up the mess, and it's still not done because we got super burned out on it after the first few months.
The reason reFill is still around and ReferenceExpander is disabled is because reFill didn't have the same issue with overwriting existing references and only could be used on bare URLs. It didn't actually produce better results, it just didn't cause as much damage. If reFill is now able to overwrite existing citations with computer generated ones, we might end up with the same sort of mess all over again, because the javascript libraries they plug in to are the same, and hasn't been substantially updated in the last year because there's only one maintainer of the codebase. Folly Mox (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, filling in citation templates is not something you should be trying to do quickly: the goal should be filling them in correctly. Always double check the script output. Automatically generating citations is a science still in its infancy. Folly Mox (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, SheriffIsInTown. Thank you for your work on PTI intra-party elections case. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hello my friend! Good day to you. Thanks for creating the article, I have marked it as reviewed. Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|SunDawn)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LLM

Warning icon Please stop. If you continue to make unconstructive edits to Wikipedia using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or another application using such a technology), you may be blocked from editing. 59.103.106.173 (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More