Saman Zara Zaidi

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Saman Zara Zaidi! Thank you for your contributions. I am Faizan Al-Badri and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Recent edits to Quetta

Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. While the content of your edit may be true, I have removed it because its depth or nature of detail are not consistent with our objectives as an encyclopedia. We recognize that your edit was made in good faith and hope you will familiarize yourself with our policies so we maycollaborate in the future. Thank you! hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 12:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I cant understand what you want to tell me. That section is about demographic then why it contains a controversial history related statement. Wikipedia is not about biasness. we have to respect national boundaries recognisied by united nations. Quetta is not on lease. It is integral part of Pakistan. I am removing the controversial statement. let demiography be demography not history. Saman Zara Zaidi (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Saman try to understand, Quetta is not on lease but the facts are facts! We can use another word instead of the harsh "lease", but we cannot remove the info! For example you can say that "Quetta became part of the British Raj", instead of using "lease". I have made some edits in this perspective, Happy editing! Faizan (talk) 06:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Then it should be in history section not in demographic section. YOU WILL AGREE

Yes I agree! I am moving the historical info from demographics to History! Faizan (talk) 07:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done, see here.

If you need help in any other field, or in case of any problem, or conflict, feel free to contact me. Faizan (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Saman Zara Zaidi (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Reviews at Chashme Baddoor (2013 film)

I reverted some of the edits because they're not really what is standard here on Wikipedia. We don't need to collect every review, just the ones from the places that Wikipedia considers to be reliable. For example, Bollywood Capsule Overall isn't really considered to be a reliable source. It's been around for a while, but longevity of a site doesn't really equate to reliability. Also, if a mention in a site is relatively short, such as in the case with Box Office India, we typically don't include that as a mention. I've actually removed it, since it's so brief that it's really not worth adding. It also doesn't help that it's along the lines of "between these two films, we believe this will do well", which isn't really the type of thing we like to add to articles. Also, we never list reviews by bullets. We almost always list them in paragraph format, giving a general synopsis of the reviews. Listing them one by one in bullet format comes across as promotional.

Please stop reverting to your version. Two editors have reverted your edits and this is turning into a reversion war. If this continues then I'll have to report you for violating WP:3RR. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• If you have anything you'd like to add to the article or a reason as to why you would prefer it kept as your version, I would probably recommend talking it out on the talk page for the film rather than reverting. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've removed some of the reviews because ultimately, many of them aren't considered to be a reliable source as far as Wikipedia is concerned. I'd really recommend mentioning any new links on the talk page for the article rather than adding them to the article. Right now the notability for the film has already been established and we have enough reviews from the larger sites to show that it's mostly positive, so we can afford to be choosy about what we add to the entry. I also don't want to sound rude, but the grammar on the page wasn't really flowing well either. I don't want to sound like I'm trying to take control of the page, but I really recommend discussing any additions or rephrasing of the current material at Talk:Chashme Baddoor (2013 film) rather than just adding them to the entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree and Done as per our concensus. Saman Zara Zaidi (talk) 08:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

you need to be more careful about the versions you are reverting to. for example in this revert you are restoring obvious misspellings, and in your version you restore "Rajeev Masand of CNN-IBN gave it 2.5 out of 5 while commenting "The new 'Chashme Baddoor' entirely works sticking to the blueprint of the original film"." when in fact the source says "the film 'doesn't entirely work because Dhawan appears conflicted between taking the characters on a journey of his making, and sticking to the blueprint of the original film. " - your version includes a blatant misrepresentation of the source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I have just reported you to the administrators again. You just dont seem to listen. If you want to shorten the story, do it. But dont delete the story like you and your puppets have always been doing. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Movie is new and running in the cinema and copy right protected so We can not reveal the full story. Other insertions are as per reliable refrences. I have done nothing wrong so if some one is threating to report me then I dont see any JUST reason Saman Zara Zaidi (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

There is ABSOLUTELY no copyright violations in a purely user generated summary. (a cut and paste copy from somewhere else is a different matter) and Wikipedia has widely come to the consensus that for an encyclopedia we SHOULD give the whole plot and NOT be helping promote the movie by providing only a "teaser" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

also boxoffice capsule] is NOT a reliably published source and so any claims based on them cannot be added to the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Story is copy right protected so we could not disclose it fully because WP english could be brought to the court for revealing full story. Saman Zara Zaidi (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

no it is not. you have some fundamental misunderstandings about copyright. copyright does not end at the time the film leaves the screens, it lasts for decades. we can describe in our own words EVERYTHING that happens in the movie EVEN BEFORE the film hits the screens and not have any worry about any violation of copyright. the only condition that applies is that it is our own words and not a copy of someone elses. you cannot copyright a story, only the specific words and pictures that you use to create/tell a story.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Dont be over smart. You are lieing. I checked your contributions on other movie pages China town and Pardeshi where u never revealed full story. you have some personal issue with chashme badoor

the only personal issue i have with chashme badoor is that it is an article which i have edited quite substantially lately and so I have a pretty good understanding of what the reliable sources say about it.

your understanding of copyright is SOO wrong that you need to sit back and read up on both how Wikipedia deals with copyright and some reliable sources about copyright in general. cause your current understanding has no basis in either. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Then you first go to all movie pages in you watch list and reveal full story there and then come to chashme badoor. I have very clear understanding of copy right so dont teach me. Full story is unnecessarySaman Zara Zaidi (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

sorry, thats not the way it works. you cannot point to WP:OTHERCRAP and refuse to abide by policies and consensus until something happens somewhere else. and as an encyclopedia, YES the full story is necessary. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chashme_Baddoor_%282013_film%29&curid=35375270&diff=550343565&oldid=550343071 and with this you are continuing to edit war to reinsert content from a source that does not meet the reliable source criteria. we can wait until reliable sources publish updated information.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I strongly, super-strongly support The Red Pen of Doom. All featured articles on movies have a super-detailed description of the movie's plot. There is nothing wrong in that. If you do observe carefully, the plot of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II was depicted in-detail over an year before the movie hit the screens. The depiction was, though based on the book, accurate and allowed. If you think depicting the movie's plot while it's still in the cinemas is a violation of copyright, then talking about the movie to your friends should be too (agreed?). The rules of Wikipedia suggest that the plot summary of any movie/event must be detailed. My version of it may be long, but when the remaining sections of the article are also expanded gradually, the page will look better. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

Hello, I'm Yintan. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Chashme Baddoor (2013 film) with this edit without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Yintan²  17:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Sir I have provided the reason in the edit summary. We can not reveal the copy right protected full story of a movie running in the cinema in 9th day. It is not a fair practice. but one editor is engaging me in edit war by revealing the complete story of the movie. Only plot should be their. Saman Zara Zaidi (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Whether you think it is "fair" or not doesnt matter a wink, the community has determined that AS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA it is our job to fully cover the subject and not just present a teaser. If you disagree and think that wikipedia needs to take into consideration the financial opportunities of a commercial business, you are free to reopen the SPOILERS decision and see if the consensus has changed. I am pretty willing to bet it hasnt. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

and the film has enjoyed a free public hosting of what can only be considered a promotional ad via its article on Wikipedia for several months. If you are going to start accounting for finances, any potential losses from the "spoilers" have been made up for many times over in the promotion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Chashme Baddoor (2013 film) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

you have now fully crossed into the territory where you will be blocked] unless you revert yourself. I urge you to take that chance. Otherwise, I hope that while you are blocked you actually read up on copyright and its application at Wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

this is quite hilarious comment. are you asking me to revert you? because you are the person who has last escalated the edit war and are the only edit that I could revert. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

and you continue to edit war. If you do not wish to be blocked, you do need to revert your edits now. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Better option

Please see other good bollywood articles,how figures are updates there sequentially.You are welcome to add your fresh one but please do not delete them.---zeeyanwiki ^discutez 18:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

Give me reason for block . Read Shahpuri dialect artcle and refrences there in. Article is 100 % based on reliable sources. I dont know the history but the reverting should be geniune and not based on false allegations of Sock pupetry. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND YOU TO READ ARTICLE AND REFRENCES FIRST AND DONT BEHAVE LIKE A ROBOTIC. NO EFFORT JUST ONE TOUCH BLOCKING ATTITUDE.BE PROFESSIONALS AND DO SOME THING WHICH CAN MAKE YOU PROUD. other wise you block me so what. there will be continious mis representation on WP and WP will loose its authenticity slowly but surly. LET professionals breath and please make some effort of reading before quick robotic actionnnnnnnn Saman Zara Zaidi (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Saman, speaking as both an editor and an admin, your points here are irrelevant. You cannot operate more than one account, and it appears that you have done so, multiple times. If you want to edit Wikipedia, you need to go back to your original account and ask for it to be unblocked. You'll probably be told that you have to take our WP:OFFER, which means waiting at least 6 months without editing Wikipedia at all, then coming back and explaining why you won't do the things that led you to be blocked in the first place. In this case, the contents of the articles are absolutely irrelevant--you have to follow the rules and not try to evade blocks or try to use multiple accounts to get your way. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I tried my best to be constructive but few dirty minded people just always pulled my leg. Now I will be destructive. I will use diffrent public internet cafes IP addresses and ask my thousands of face book frndz around the world and we will start deleting WP articles and vandal them and give back to all of you same pain you gave to me. I give 3 days warning to un block me other wise GOD swear sooner or later u will see my destructive face. Post it to WP admin page. I am not joking its a serious warning. I was and i will be always constructive given that you guys immediatly un block me. Other wise dont worry I could not be constructive as per you people but i am very sure I will be destructive in future. Decision is yours . Action will be mine. Saman Zara Zaidi (talk) 09:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Stop warning us, because it certainly wont help. No matter how many accounts you create, there are enough admins here on Wikipedia to block people like you. We CAN and we WILL identify every sock you create. Think well before you call a group of Wikipedians dirty minded. And I dont think we have given you much pain. Its you who has been giving us Wikipedians the pain of constantly reverting your edits, breaking the 3RR. Its us Wikipedians who have been taking the pain of manually scanning the edits of your socks. Your many attempts to try and contribute to Wikipedia rendered useless and I do hope you see that this way of editing is not helpful. I wonder if your thousands of friends on Facebook will ever listen to you and try to vandalize Wikipedia. And your serious warning, only makes you look like a self-advertiser. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Saman, I told you how you can be unblocked: go back to your original account and request an unblock there. You will have to promise to stop doing whatever got you blocked in the first place, and explain what was wrong, and persuade an admin to believe you. Then an admin will review that request. But your threat is fairly trivial: Wikipedia has lots of ex-editors who try to do nothing but destruction...and as Anikingos says, we deal with them. We have automatic tools that stop a large portion of them within minutes (thousands of edits actually get stopped even before saving), and hundreds of people actively watching for problematic contributions for the rest. We would much rather have a knowledgeable and constructive editor, but if you want to go to the dark side, you're just wasting your own time (and the time of your "facebook friends"). Qwyrxian (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It had been so many tries by me to adjust to peoples wish list but not all but few people here are third class. What if some one is admin he must have big heart and no ego and should see my services since one year on wikipedia. I put effort to make pages full of refrences always tried positivly but now it is time to revert them back what they deserve. when you play with my self respect I will play biggest mind game of my life to tease you all. and Mr. Anikingos you your self acknowledged that you had pain from me and I wasted a lot of wiki pedian's time then it looks quite funny when you say that i can not do anything in future. and you guys dont know my frndz who can die for me. 3 days warning to make me constructive and un block other wise swear to my mother I will teach a lesson to wikipedia 3rd class group of editors.Saman Zara Zaidi (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

What I actually mean, is that all you can do is cause pain, and nothing else. We're not the only ones around here, so we wont take all the pain. You dont have to worry about that. Like Qwyrxian and I have mentioned previously, there are hundreds of awesome people out there, watching out for vandals like you. So your warning is pretty much nothing for us. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually I will target the nasty babies like you who refered me on admin notice board. You violating copy right of a currently running movie Chash me badoor just for sake of your biasness of Pakistani lead hero in that. Had you not been biased you would have added full stories of all movies on your check list but i saw your contributions and you never narrated full story the other articles. You are sick mentaly and zeeyanwiki and TheRedPenofDoom are your bloody socks and i will make ur mind sickest it is the promise.Saman Zara Zaidi (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

if you still think that writing a complete summary of the storyline of a film in our own words while it is in the theaters is somehow a copyright problem, you are still absolutely WRONG.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-appeals-enlists.wikimedia.org.  Gogo Dodo (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Just clarifying. Ali Zafar has more fans in India than in Pakistan. Talk about bias. Also, zeeyanwiki and TheRedPenofDoom are two completely different awesome people. Not my socks. Wikipedia isn't a place where things like bias exist. We're all Wikipedians. You will never be. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)