Murtaza.mma

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page to follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons' policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring and sock puppetry.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! - Managerarc ^talk 10:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Original research

Hi, thanks for your edits on Harakiri. However, it's not allowed to put original research into Wikipedia articles. Can you please read about the definition of original research at WP:OR, and if you have any questions please let me know, but please don't put that section back again. Thanks. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

March 2015

Do not add Self-published blog source in the article NH10. You have removed a Properly sourced Genre in NH10 with your Original research. MeeGhaMan ^(talk) 09:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The article you have cited is factually incorrect. Slasher films are a subgenre of horror film, typically involving a psychopathic killer stalking a sequence of victims in a violent manner, often with a bladed tool such as a knife, machete, or axe.I have been writing on international cinema at IMDb.COM for over 6 years. My reviews regularly get featured in among the top critic reviews on leading international movie sites. My blog is one of the tip rated blogs in India in the entertainment niche with BlogAdds, IndiBlogger, India Top Blogs and Baggout repeatedly acknowledging it. I can tell you that NH10 is not a slasher film far by any imagination. It fits it in the definition of a crime thriller. And so I request you to not use the world "slasher" on the wikipedia page to describe it. I am not very active on wikipedia and so I am not as thorough as yourself with various guidelines but at least I can tell you from my knowledge of cinema about the relevance and aptness of genres.

Sir,if so atleast source the Genre from a reliable news site. Wikipedia doesn't need any original research or self published blog source.If your review was published in a reliable newspaper site you can very well cite it but not your own blog site, whatever may be your experience, it is against wikipedia policy.MeeGhaMan ^(talk) 10:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

You see I am still getting acquainted with the various wikipedia guidelines. Since you brought it to my notice, I chose not to add that link back even though it would have been a great value addition for the readers. In the theme section that I had added, which you have now shortened to a single line, I had cited the wikipedia pages for honour killing and khap panchayat throwing spotlight on the infamous Manoj Babli honour killing case. The information was mainly factual and had nothing to do with my experience. I hope you will understand that since my blog already gets cited by leading editors on wikipedia (concerning international cinema) I am not really desperate to any kind of a self promotion. My only concern is that deeming NH10 a slasher film would be unfair to the readers as well as the film. It can be completely misleading to the uninitiated readers.

References

Self-promotion

Hi there, I'm an administrator on the English Wikipedia. Based on some of your recent edits[1][2] I get the sense that you are here in part to promote yourself, your personal opinions, as well as your blog apotpourriofvestiges.com. I notice such changes as far back as 2012, and I believe you have resorted to making such changes while logged out as well[3][4]. Since you have a clear conflict of interest, you shouldn't be adding stuff like this where you pad a review section with your own review. Going back to 2012, I find this, where you present as fact your own opinion that a film has an "uncanny" similarity to some of Tarantino's work. If we don't let regular users pad articles with self-written opinion pieces, I'm not sure why we'd let you do it. It constitutes original research, and the fact that you're supporting your own opinions with links to your own reviews just seems shady. The best way to avoid this negative attention, is to please stop focusing on self-promotion and find other constructive ways to contribute to the project. Please note also that if this sort of spammy behavior continues, your site will be blacklisted and all mentions of you will likely be scrubbed from Wikipedia just out of general principle. That would probably be embarrassing. Thank you and regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear esteemed administrator,

Let me begin by congratulating you for the amazing work you have been doing here on Wikipedia. Regarding your concerns, I must tell you that it is a bit unfair on your part to target anything and everything here on Wikipedia that has my name or my site's. Today, I contribute to a large number of reputed publications including The Huffington Post, Wittyfeed, Jamuura Blog, Cafe Dissensus, etc. As far as A Potpourri of Vestiges is concerned, the site gets tens of thousands of readers every month and from different parts of the globe. Since I have the privilege of attending press conferences and press premieres of all the latest releases, I get to watch movies ahead of the others. I also am able to review movies ahead of the others. Take the case of the movie 'Silence', I actually reviewed it much before anybody else did in India. Almost all my movie reviews feature among the top reviews in the IMDb's critic reviews section. When people visit IMDb my reviews are the first ones they come across, especially when it comes to Bollywood movie releases. Most of the lesser Bollywood films don't have properly managed Wiki pages. As a matter of fact those films don't even get reviewed by many critics. So there is every possibility that the fans come across my reviews first in the google/ search. Many filmmakers follow me on Twitter (@apotofvestiges) and it is a regular thing for them to mention/retweet my review of their films. Once that happens there is every chance of my review making it to the wikipedia page. My review of Irada garnered over 50 retweets/likes/mentions including the one from the actor Arshad Warsi. As far as the accusation of self-promotion is concerned I must tell you that I don't really need it. Back in 2012, I may have ignorantly crossed the line but today I don't really see any need. If you google for "Murtaza Ali Khan" then on the very first page itself you will find my Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.in/bloggers/murtaza-ali-khan/) and The Review Monk (https://thereviewmonk.com/critic/murtaza-ali-khan/) links. So it is my humble request that you stop targeting my name or the name of my site from now one. On my part I assure you that I personally will not add any link of my own on the Wikipedia pages... neither from my account nor when I am logged off. But I certainly cannot contain others from adding it. Also, if someone else likes my reviews/articles and feels them worthy enough I don't see why he/she can't. During the last couple of years I have also delved into filmmaking and have already made three short films. I even have an IMDb page today. If tomorrow I end up making any substantial contribution to Indian cinema and someone ends up creating a Wikipedia page for me then can I be blamed for self-promotion? I once again reassure that I personally wouldn't indulge in any kind of self-promotion here on Wikipedia. But please don't hold it against me if some other user ends up adding my reviews here.

Thanks & Regards, Murtaza

October 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Farhat Basir Khan, you may be blocked from editing. Begoon 14:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

This is regarding the Wikipedia page of Professor Farhat Basir Khan. I hold a special interest in the subject. He is one one India's earliest academics in the field of photography and has played an instrumental role in proposing photography courses at various colleges and universities. I occasionally edit his page time to time to keep it updated with his latest work. He recently came out with a book called "The Game of Votes" by Sage Publications. So I made an entry about the same. Ever since the page has been getting re-edited. I am willing to cooperate and abide by the policies of Wikipedia but please don't keep on striking down the details. I must emphasize that what I am doing is not promotional at all. The info is backed by third party links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murtaza.mma (talk • contribs) 14:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

If you add blatant puffery and unencyclopedic material it will be removed. Your motives are immaterial, and I don't intend to debate it here. This is an encyclopedia, and material needs to be neutral in tone, without hyperbole. -- Begoon 15:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. This page has been in place much before I started adding stuff. A lot of the earlier stuff was there already when I started adding new stuff and I chose not to touch it. Take, for example, the entry about the book. It has a foreword by the former Indian President Pranab Mukherjee and is published by Sage. Now, I had added bonafide links from leading publications in the reference and all the information about the book that I had provided was objective in nature as per my understanding. And yet it has been removed. Also, now that all the objectionable stuff (from previous editions) has been edited out I was wondering if the error template can now be removed. Please do advice me in this regard. Also, I request you to reconsider removing the entry about the book "The Game of Votes". Finally, some of the stuff about 'Professional Work and Achievements' was all properly backed. The following resume (link: https://www.jmi.ac.in/upload/employeeresume/fbkhan.pdf) is vetted by the official website of the Jamia University on which it is uploaded. So I entreat you to reconsider removing these details also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murtaza.mma (talk • contribs) 15:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia article, not a resume - you need to understand the difference. The COI template is appropriate. Read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography to see what is acceptable and expected. What you added is almost entirely useless for an encyclopedia article. I don't have time to hold your hand - you need to follow all the many links and advice you've been given by many people on this page and elsewhere. Please also learn to WP:SIGN and WP:INDENT properly - you've been here long enough that you should, by now, be courteous to other editors by following our norms. Thank you. -- Begoon 15:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Headshot of Professor Farhat Bashir Khan.png

The file File:Headshot of Professor Farhat Bashir Khan.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)