User talk:Samee/Archives/2014/November

Happy Halloween!!!

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

Cheers! "We could read for-EVER; reading round the wiki!" (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup - Round 2

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 2 Greetings, GA Cup competitors! Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. Jaguar took out Round 1 with an amazing score of 238. In a tight race for second, Peacemaker67 and Ritchie333 finished second and third with 152 and 141 points, respectively. Two users have scored the maximum five bonus points for article length (60,000 characters+). Anotherclown reviewed Spanish conquest of Yucatán (77,350 characters) and MrWooHoo reviewed Communist Party of China (76,740 characters). The longest review was by Bilorv who reviewed Caldas da Rainha. The review was approximately 22,400 characters which earned s/he two bonus points (20, 000 - 29, 999 characters). In Round 1, 117 reviews were completed, making the first round of the GA Cup a success! A total of 86 articles were removed from the backlog during the month of October! We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 2 so we can lower the backlog as much as possible. To qualify for the second round, one completed review was needed, which 28 users accomplished. Participants have been randomly put into 7 pools of 4; the top 2 in each pool will move onto Round 3. There will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 15th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 2 will start on November 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on November 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here Also, remember that a major rule change will go into affect starting on November 1, which marks the beginning of Round Two. Round 1 displayed a weakness in the rules, which we are correcting with this new rule. We believe that this change will make the competition more inherently fair. The new rule is: Your review must provide feedback/suggestions for improvement, and then you must wait until the nominator has responded and all issues/suggestions have been resolved before you can pass the article. Failure to follow this rule will result in disqualification. The judges will strictly enforce this new rule. Good luck and remember to have fun! Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Nov 2

You actually have problem with the usage of the word "Islamic terrorism", as you did here. Faizan 16:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It is in fact you who has problem. Their cause/motive is Zarb-e-Azb operation against them and the Islamic terrorism is not the motive but the act. You are getting biased with the word Islamic terrorism, repeating it again and again all the way. Instead see this  SAMI  ^talk 16:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This 2014 Wagah Border attack could simply be redirected to your article. Why did you speedy it? Faizan 17:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This was not intentional. Had the article I started been the duplicate, I would have placed speedy deletion tag on it.  SAMI  ^talk 17:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

An IP from India did elucidate it here, and I was doing the same. Their motive was not "itself Operation Zarb-e-Azb" but in fact was "response to the operation". And that response was in the form of terrorism. Faizan 17:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

For me motive as in the Infobox is the reason for a certain course of action and the reason they attacked civilian people was the Operation Zarb-e-Azb, which is against the militants. I was still not convinced with the edit by an anonymous user. But I appreciated the effort on the part of the user to settle the dispute, which is essential for maintaining peace and love among Wikipedia memebers. Template documentation also defines motive as the reason why the attack was carried out and while their terrorist act is the response, which I also stated earlier but does not come under motive as motive itself defines why the action was carried out. When I wrote Motive as Operation Zarb-e-Azb against militants it was clear that the cause of their attack is the Zarb-e-Azb against them.  SAMI  ^talk 17:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Salam Samee

I have reverted one of your edit (2014 Wagah border suicide attack)...For perpetrators you wrote Jundullah and Jamaat ul Ahrar...which is not correct since both have claim responsibility for the attack separately.... Read here

http://www.dawn.com/news/1142307/wagah-attack-ahrar-claim-of-responsibility-appears-more-credible

Thank youSaadkhan12345 (talk) 06:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Wagah suicide attack.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wagah suicide attack.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Habib University

Thank you for reviewing the draft:Habib University. Copy violation needs clarification. I attempted to have material sources from independent, reliable, published sources and provided their references (vide ref list). However, contents matching needs replacement of words, belief or not this was not in my knowledge. Plz see, before construction of my building I visited a building not the whole but its two rooms only, as per my requirement (lay out). I referred visit of building and this building's other rooms which I did not visit were matching to my building. Nannadeem (talk) 09:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello Samee/Archives/2014. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Mubashir Luqman, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. See talkpage. DMacks (talk) 09:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Neither I see anything destructive in moving the page Mubashir Luqman to Mubashir Lucman nor it violates Wikipedia guidelines. I did quote the reason as his official, registered spellings. The move request at talkpage is absurd. See multiple references 1, 2, 3. Issuing a warning was also illogical. As I tagged the page Azad Kashmir / Pakistan occupied Kashmir for deletion just because it was a misnomer and created due to persistent page moves among titles viz. 'Pakistan-occupied Kashmir', 'Azad Kashmir' and 'Azad Kashmir / Pakistan occupied Kashmir' and you declined the request. Yes, I failed to check the previous consensus held before tagging but this does not mean I be scrutinized for my past edits and be issued warning. Would you please mention what has been violated in moving page from Mubashir Luqman to Mubashir Lucman. It was in accordance to the guideline.  SAMI  ^talk 09:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Consensus overrides bold. Or WP:RM requires discussion if it's likely to be controversial or disputed, and evidence of a previous consensus exactly opposite what you think is pretty good evidence that your idea (although it might be "right") is not undisputed. DMacks (talk) 13:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree consensus overrides bold. I have already confessed that I could not see the discussion held against Azad Kashmir / Pakistan occupied Kashmir. The title of the page looked me too odd and I tagged it. I have no objection to your denial. But as far as Mubashir Lucman is concerned, there was no established consensus but a mere request with a dead link. Does Bold fail here? His official twitter account, the channel where he works, the program he hosts and even Google Infobox all show up Mubashir Lucman instead of the general spellings of Luqman. I have asked for your explanation regarding this uncontroversial topic.  SAMI  ^talk 17:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

PS Just because few references wrote Luqman does not mean it is correct in this case. The more reliable sites have written Lucman. Definitely it violates Wikipedia guidelines. 17:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Bold doesn't fail on its face. But it's not "obviously and undisputably incorrect" given at least some people previously had the other position and some of the cited refs use the other spelling; so after B, R gets us back to the previous stable state (which was the result of the previous WP:RM process) to allow D to get a clearer explanation of the rationale and see if others (still) have alternate positions. That way talkpage stands as the record of the new consensus. DMacks (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Wapvix.com

Hi Samee; not sure what happened with my Wapvix.com speedy deletion call; I did it from the New Page Review console and I'm not sure if it's a bit buggy or whatever. Anyway, just wanted to say thanks for fixing it :-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)