User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2019/May

Request to Restore ESMO Corporation page

Hi, I have noticed you deleted ESMO Corporation page. I understand that some of the editors think that the company is not notable enough to have a wikipedia page but since there were other opinions as well I would like to ask you to move the page to afc where it will be enhanced to meet all of the requirements. Once again, the reason I moved the page to article main space without going through the request process was because I was thinking I am eligible to do that since there was no link to afc request. Please, reconsider the deletion. Narine1202 (talk)

Please indicate the sources with which you want to enhance the article. Sandstein 19:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

For example this one http://www.businesspost.co.kr/BP?command=article_view&num=122756 and there are some others. Like I mentioned previously, there are some sources in Korean only and I was trying to include only English sources thinking there might be some issues with the language.

Thanks Narine1202 (talk) 06:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@DGG: As the AfD nominator, what is your view? Sandstein 09:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Narine1202: Please disclose any relationship you have with ESMO Corporation. Are you working for them or are you being paid to edit a Wikipedia article on their behalf? Sandstein 09:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

and what about your other article in progress, Draft:DA Technology ? DGG ( talk ) 21:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Going by the Google translation, the Korean reference you just gave is an aticle about self-driving cars,whichlists a number of the companies that might beexpected to benefit, including this one. That is not substantial coverage. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Narine1202: Because you have not replied to the above, and in view of DGG's assessment, I decline to restore the article. Sandstein 10:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Nishidani, yet again.

Hello Sandstein, I was wondering if you can have a word with Nishidani. I do not want to bring him to AE, but he is up to his usual bullying and aggressive editing, as even Wikieditor19920 points out. If you visit, [1] you will see the usual. As Wikieditor19920 put it, "The two of you together are engaging in a pattern of bullying and insulting anyone who dares to offer a different opinion, including myself, Icewhiz, and Sir Joseph, which is also known as tendentious editing." This in essence continues to drive editors away from the subject area. Thank you. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, sorry, but admins aren't mediators (and I, in particular, don't consider myself well suited to that task). All I know how to do is banning and blocking people when problems exceed a certain threshold. Actually solving the underlying conduct and content problems is much, much harder, and above my pay grade of zero... Sandstein 15:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Alaa Salah

You uploaded a screenshot of an image of Alaa Salah. I have just asked the author for permission to use it and added similar fair-use templates. I will let you know when/if I hear back from the author. Could you guide her through the process if she is interested in accepting her image's use? Thanks. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

No, you can do this as well as I could. Remember that any permission that would be useful to us would ned to include an explicit free (CC-BY-SA) license, as a result of which the image should then be uploaded to Commons. Sandstein 07:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Pickupp

Hello Sandstein,

I am reaching out to you here as I do not know how else I can respond to your request for this page to be deleted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickupp

As the owner of the page, I would like to clarify that this is a non-promotional article, but simply a desire to list this company as an established logistics last-mile delivery company. We started 2 years ago and already have presence in 4 countries. I also tried to follow guidelines and include references similar to companies like Easyship and Lalamove. No promotional language is also used in the article. Appreciate your advice on this. Thank you!

Shermainetjm (talk) 09:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi. You can make this argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pickupp. But please note that per WP:COI, you should not create and edit articles on behalf of your own company. Sandstein 09:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Why did you remove Juan Manuel González (racing driver)?

99721829Max (talk) 03:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juan Manuel González (racing driver). Sandstein 10:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Hope it's not too early  :) ——SerialNumber54129 09:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Phelps DRV

Just a short note to tell you I very much appreciate your thoughtful closure of this DRV. I myself would probably just have closed "endorsed", period. But with the media attention, your explanation of this decision is extremely useful and very well formulated. Thanks, I think I learned something! --Randykitty (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a good statement. I was planning to write something similar if I had closed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Was just coming here to say what those two just did. --GRuban (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

And a day late, me as well - really well written and helpful given the likelihood of non-Wikipedians finding out about it. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Electric Brain AfD relisted?

With all due respect, regarding Electric Brain's AfD, I believe that you "should write a short explanation either within the relist template, or in addition to it, as to why you did not consider the debate sufficient" according to wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions as, "in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice". Thanks for your time! Mattsephton (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

It has been brought to my attention that this may in fact be the 2nd relisting, and the original AfD does not count towards the relist tally? Please advise. Mattsephton (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, mine was the second relisting. The AfD listing is not a re-listing, it‘s the original listing. Sandstein 21:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Protection

Hey there, you had protect the article Ananya Panday from recreation after this deletion discussion. A user has now attempted to bypass the protection and created Ananya Panday (actress), which I have subsequently redirected again. Please protect it too. Thanks, DeluxeVegan (talk) 10:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done Sandstein 18:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Help please

Can you tell me what I can do?

An editor or two(?) deleted text I added to an article (with clear support). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Central_Park_jogger_case#Reversion

His reasons do not seem to me at least to be on point. And for most of his deletions he did not give any reason. I tried the talk page. I cannot get a real discussion. This will be an important article at the end of this month, so I think it fair that wikipedia be honest and balanced.

I feel filibustered. How do I get outside independent people to settle this? Thank you. --2604:2000:E010:1100:AD2B:7B67:1524:1D6A (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

See generally WP:DR for how to approach such disagreements. And also WP:TLDR: I didn't read anything you wrote because it was too long. Sandstein 21:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Questions

Two questions:

• Can I edit the articles I am working on under User:Huldra/Mamluk Jerusalem, that is articles like User:Huldra/Al-Kilaniyya, and User:Huldra/Al-'Uthmaniyya?
• Can I edit (start articles) in Lebanon, typically the red linked articles in Template:Bint Jbeil District, or Template:Tyre District? Huldra (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

That depends on whether these topics or edits relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I don't know that. Sandstein 20:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, you can read User:Huldra/Al-'Uthmaniyya; that is an article I was almost finished with (should have some Mamluk and early Ottoman era expansion). As for the Lebanese articles, they would have no information after the Ottoman time, they would be articles like Kafr Dunin, Khirbet Selm, or Kfar Sir, Huldra (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't have the time to parse every sentence for whether it might have some modern-day conflict relevance, sorry. You'll have to determine that for yourself. Sandstein 21:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Who else can I ask? Huldra (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Huldra, you should be fine. El_C 22:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

User:El C: thank you, Huldra (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

LumaNatic, again

Just noticed User:LumaNatic/Freedom_colonies. I presume that userspace isn't immune from topic bans... Black Kite (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

What was that ban again? Sandstein 18:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

..."anything to do with race, racism, racial history and politics, slavery, or white supremacy, all very broadly construed". [2]. Black Kite (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Right, but why aren't you taking action yourself? Sandstein 19:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, missed that you'd replied. Wasn't 100% sure about userspace edits. Since I suspect the user is as well, I'll drop them a final warning. Black Kite (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Kelly Meighen

This is a clear no consensus. Your delete of the article is puzzling and disappointing. From the afd more editors disagree with your opinion and interpretation. I will likely make a futile appeal. The actions of administrators are basically beyond reproach which is why they should be careful to do the right thing. Ignoring No- WP:CONSENSUS does not seem like the right thing. I certainly wasted time improving the article and participating in an afd that an administrator can ignore. Lubbad85 (☎) 00:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Kelly Meighen

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kelly Meighen. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Lubbad85 (☎) 01:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Umm

In cases like this, I believe that it's best to ping all the admins (who have proposed some form of sanction or the other) about whether they want to take any actions and then, pending the lack of any reply within a day or so, close it as stale. ∯WBG^converse 11:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I know that others sometimes do this, especially when a matter seems contentious, but it's not my usual practice. If an admin had wanted to take action, they could long have done so. Sandstein 11:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella TBAN

1. You've previously TBANed User talk:GizzyCatBella/Archives/2022/June#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction - "Your are topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from the World War II history of Poland. For the avoidance of doubt, this includes any acts of violence by, in or against Poland, or by or against Poles or Polish Jews, during or immediately prior to or after World War II, as well as persons known for their involvement in the World War II history of Poland.". We've previously interacted on this matter - User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2019/February#GizzyCatBella. You've also warned GizzyCatBella - User talk:GizzyCatBella#Marek Jan Chodakiewicz‎ that they should not edit historians who specialize in Polish WWII history.
2. I was therefore surprised when GizzyCatBella performed the following revert: 04:50, 18 May 2019 - the text starting with "In 2012, Radzilowski published an essay titled The Neo-Stalinist Discourse in Polish Historical Studies in the United States in Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold? Studies on the Wartime Fate of Poles and Jews (they have also subsequently edited the page extensively and the talk page). Besides the edit itself being related to WWII Polish/Jewish history (the essay is in a book on the topic and advances the argument that US social sciences in general and history on Poland specifically are "neo-Stalinist" and biased against Poland in context of WWII history). As evident from Radzilowski's CV - he has written quite a bit on Polish WWII history - e.g. his latest book - Frantic 7: The American Effort to Aid the Warsaw Uprising and the Origins of the Cold War, 1944 Hardcover, “Remembrance and Recovery: The Museum of the Warsaw Rising and the Memory of World War II in Post-Communist Poland,” The Public Historian 31, no. 4 (2009), 143–58., and “Yaffa Eliach’s Big Book of Holocaust Revisionism,” Journal of Genocide Studies 1, no. 2 (1999): 273–80..
3. I will note that GizzyCatBella should've been aware of the nature of Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold? as after they reverted me over here (which I do not think violated their TBAN, despite the reference) - they claimed - diff - they could not discuss this since I mentioned "Holocaust in Poland" in describing the reference this was taken from (as well as providing other references).
4. After the incident today, I also looked at GizzyCatBella's other recent contribution, and would note the following:
   1. Adolf Warski - diff (and a bunch of others) - Polish communist with Jewish roots - executed in the 1937 great purge.
   2. Karl Radek - diff (and a bunch of others) - Communist with Jewish roots, active in the Polish communist movement. Also caught up in the great purges, and died in March 1939 in a Soviet Gulag.
   3. Thaddeus Radzilowski - diff - Polish-American historian. The article contains - "Piast also takes a lead role in protecting Polish culture from defamation and ensuring healthy dialogue between groups of all cultures. In 2006, it promoted serious discussion of the book FEAR: Anti-Semitism in Poland After Auschwitz by soiologist Jan T. Gross, sponsoring an online international scholarly symposium (www.AnalysisofFEAR.org[permanent dead link]) on the highly debated charges made by the author. Piast was also a strong voice speaking against the common mischaracterization of Nazi concentration camps built on Polish soil as "Polish Death Camps," aiding in an effort that culminated with the United Nations renaming the "Auschwitz-Birkenau Concentration Camp" to the "Former Nazi German Concentration Camp Auschwitz-Birkenau.".
   4. Friedrich Jeckeln - diff - Jeckeln is notorious for many things, many outside of Poland. However in the Polish context - during Barbarossa he was command of HSSPF Russia-South (which included Western Ukraine - or former (pre-1939) Eastern Poland) - was a perpetrator of the Holocaust by bullets (also in eastern pre-war Poland as well as deeper in Ukraine (e.g. Babi Yar)). Afterwards in command in the Baltics, which included some area that was former Poland - Reichskommissariat Ostland he commanded included NE Poland. Then he was in the Western front, but in early 1945 he was assigned command of V SS Mountain Corps (dewiki better) in the eastern front (In feb 1945 they fell back in Vistula–Oder Offensive - in Western Poland, in April Battle of the Seelow Heights - on the eastern edge of modern Germany - (communist) Poland is listed as a belligerent in the battle in our article - due to First Polish Army (1944–1945) taking part in the battle).
   5. Israel Singer - diff - though this is not obvious from our present article, Singer has been involved in the Holocaust in Poland from a few angles, including property restitution (seized during the Holocaust) - e.g. 1996, or 2007 trip to Warsaw appealing return of property.

For your consideration. Also notifying: @GizzyCatBella:. Icewhiz (talk) 07:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Response and Topic Ban appeal

Sandstein, Please take your time and review every article presented here as a violation of TP, there is nothing about WW2 history of Poland within the articles. As you presumably know, I was extremely cautious not to breach the TP imposed last year with one or two fully accidental slips in the past that has been dealt with and I regretted for. The only edit that has likely merit now and was presented above is the article about Thaddeus Radzilowski. I changed a very small detail [3] BUT soon self reverted [4] after noticing 2 lines about the Holocaust in Poland later. I added also the following note "Self reverting due to the possible TP breach. Please note the particular necessary adjustment (deceased person)" For nearly a year now, while Topic Banned from WW2 articles related to Poland, I have successfully contributed to numerous articles in other topic areas, including DYK articles I created [5] Last year on June 25th, you TP me [6] for what I learned was incompetence and stubbornness with the following summary: "..I invite GizzyCatBella to appeal it in six months showing evidence of substantial, competent, prejudice-free editing in other topic areas. Assuming good faith, i.e. that this is more of a case of stubbornness and incompetence rather than a deliberate attempt to insert anti-semitic propaganda, I am not blocking GizzyCatBella at this time" [7] I wasn't rushing with my appeal due to stress that is affiliated with editing highly controversial areas such as WW2 history of Poland but also because I wanted to prove that I have learned from my mistakes and I'm able to edit utterly conflict-free in other topic areas. However now due to unfair accusations of Topic Ban violations, I would like to have my topic ban lifted. I sincerely believe that I'm ready and have learned enough from the TP imposed to resume my full opportunities to participate in this project, editing Wikipedia productively and without conflicts. I consider my edit records [8] to prove and address concerns if any, that disruption is unlikely to happen again. If my topic ban is lifted, I will use the best reliable sources available as that was also one of your concerns. If this appeal is granted it will be very appreciated.GizzyCatBella (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: The complaint has merit. The edits at issue violate your topic ban for the reasons given by Icewhiz. In your response here, you do not substantially address these edits. When you write that "there is nothing about WW2 history of Poland within the articles", you misunderstand the scope of a topic ban, as described at WP:TBAN: it does not only include edits directly addressing the World War II history of Poland, but also everything related to that topic. This includes persons known for being active in the World War II history of Poland, or for writing about it.

In enforcement of the topic ban, you are blocked for a week. Because of this recent violation of the topic ban, I decline to lift it. Sandstein 09:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Numonius Vala

Category:Ancient Roman prosopographical lists is a better category. Category:Articles about multiple people is very unsatisfactory. If properly populated it would include thousands of articles - families, gangs, sports teams ... Rathfelder (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Sandstein 23:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Anand Prakash

Hello, you have deleted Anand Prakash in past based on a deletion discussion. But I think the subject is notable. I have prepared a Draft:Anand Prakash which have sources ranging from 2016-2019 in different newspapers. The person is a regular bounty hunter and has managed to get ample media coverage. Can you please have a relook and suggest on what is the status for the same? Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 06:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to decline to offer a view, because of a lack of time and interest in the topic. Sandstein 06:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kst (software)

re: close for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kst (software) having come across in my travels the independent suggested use of Kst in real time graphing of open energy monitoring [9] I find a significant new additional third party resource. Normally that would be insufficient to reconsider the article on the basis of a delete close but given the closure comment This is still not a very clear-cut case are we not in a position where a review is reasonable? Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so. This is a case of software being used, i.e., a primary source. What we need for notability is substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Sandstein 12:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

So if I take your argument the following is a secondary: [10]. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

That looks like a WP:SPS. Sandstein 14:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Please take your interpersonal disputes elsewhere. Sandstein 06:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It has three authors. Well I was right when I said the article is too tainted so I'll send an alternative up via AfD as my improvements sent it from a redirect to a delete. Argue Argue Argue is not what I came to Wikipedia for! Let Piotrus have his gloat on this one ... I was having a nice day till I got pinged by him and now I'm flipped .... Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC) @Djm-leighpark: I'd appreciate it if you'd stop with personal attacks and bad faith directed at me. I have nothing to gloat about, and your suggestion that I do is not very friendly. Please refactor your post to avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND wordings. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC) @{U|Piotrus}} please take me off to WP:ANI again. I'm hardly likely to be in a great move after you pointed at Air VPN yestderday morning where I arrived to find it being spam vandalised with some very dodgy links and basically checking that out. Did my head in that did. This is all direct or indirect fallout from the 60+ AfD/prods done in a year. I'm trying to clear my head to fcous on LetterWise that got side nominated from WordWise that Sandstein relisted yesterday ... though I appreciate your weak keep on that. Yes this feels like a batteground. Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Re creating page

Hello sir my page was deleted because of non english references now i have few more reliable film reviews and references from news i want to re create my page which was deleted as you the one who deleted my page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_786 i am contacting you and asking permission to recreate it please allow me to add more references in english.

Can you please add the three best new references here? Sandstein 12:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure sir here are few best news reference in english ( not in urdu language)

https://enews.hamariweb.com/entertainment/praising-pakistan-army-by-animated-film-operation-786/ https://beam.pk/animated-film-operation-786/ https://videostreet.pk/news/54384/operation-786-a-film-about-pak-air-force-paf-operation https://www.ukfilmreview.co.uk/blog/operation-786-short-film-review https://hamariweb.com/articles/115223 https://www.dailyinfotech.com/2019/02/pakistani-animated-movie-operation-786.html http://purazm.gov.pk/?p=4011

rest are urdu newspaper and news blog

@Huon, Justlettersandnumbers, and Otr500:, as AfD participants, what are your views? I find it difficult to evaluate the reliability of these sources, but the fact that the first three articles, which I looked at, are in very poor English does not inspire confidence. Sandstein 17:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem wasn't that the references were in Urdu but that the film just isn't notable. Three of the sources listed above are "new":

• UK Film Review is a blog, not a reliable source (it also pans the movie, but that's not in itself a problem).
• Daily Info Tech is a plot summary that doesn't show any real-world impact. I also suspect it's a translation (likely a machine translation?) of one of the Urdu sources given earlier; it's identical to the beam.pk source.
• The PurAzm link is broken. I checked the PurAzm website and couldn't find any mention of this film; it doesn't even seem to be eligible for the award because video entries are limited to a length of at most 5 minutes. I checked the 2018 criteria via Wayback Machine, and it wasn't eligible in 2018 either.

The other sources were given in the now-deleted article or in the deletion discussion itself. In summary, nothing here changes my opinion. If the article were re-created, I'd probably tag it for speedy deletion. Huon (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Non-English sources can be used but there is a preference to English when available as this is an English version. I always want to encourage new editor involvement but articles in very poor English present a real problem as this is an encyclopedia. If the sources are non-English, the writing is poor, and the subject is something that will not attract any or very little traffic, we end up with a mess likely to remain as such. I will defer to User:Huon's assessment on the added sources and opinion of the article as it seems thorough. Otr500 (talk) 11:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi both of you i respect your decision however on purazm they accept longer videos and the film " operation 786" has been published there but due to restrictions it shows to member only if you need i will share screenshot of that link :) , the film on purazm will be available live to that link after eid festival which will be end in 10 days or so. for urdu articles here are news references and newspapers but the problem is the main article is in english.

but hamariweb is a news portal which is biggest in pakistan and that film is showing in news section kindly note that not all films comes in international news because this film is pro pakistani and anti indian somehow so most of the editors dont write reviews. but i will stick to what you guys said and i respect the editors of wikipedia if i see any new news reference i will put. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MemonBhai (talk • contribs) 22:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)