User talk:SheriffIsInTown: Difference between revisions

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]

	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]

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.

You have repeatedly reverted people's edits on Yazidis with edit summaries claiming they were vandalism. That was not always the case (in fact, in at least one case, your revert flew right in the fact of the cited source, which, while not in English, are easily checked with an automatic translator). Vandalism is a grave accusation to make, so you should refrain from making it lightly. I hope you will provide more constructive edit summaries in the future, as well as trying to avoid to revert legitimate edits. LjL (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most Yezidis speak Kurmanji, a Kurdish dialect, as their mother tongue.

Source 15, page 5, section 1.6, first sentence

At least, I am providing summaries, not making unexplained IP edits like some and then coming back to remand people when they get reverted. I suggest you talk before you make controversial IP edits. Sheriff (report) 17:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, are you accusing me of being the one behind the "controversial IP edits"? LjL (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as noted in my latest edit summary, you have neglected to consider the source cited immediately after the claim, which is the one I was directly referring to. LjL (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That reference does not clearly say that the name of language is Yazidi language, it does however say that Yazidi language is Kurmanji then again when there are multiple sources which clearly say the language name as Kurmanji then why should we consider a source which is ambiguous. Sheriff (report) 17:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then remove the source if it's inaccurate or not reliable (though you better make a good case of it), but misrepresenting it and/or labeling other people's edits that comform to the source "vandalism" is not appropriate. Besides, it doesn't spell the language name as "Yazidi" because (duh!) it's not in English, but in Russian, so it comes out differently from Google Translate. But anyway I don't care how you choose to transliterate it. I'm mostly just concerned with your vehemence in reverting and accusing when not-so-warranted. LjL (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fair point that half the questions being asked are not related directly to this instance, and the RD exists to help people with this kind of question. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Then, i think a move will help. Can we just move the discussion to RD instead of just removing it completely? Sheriff (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's probably easiest to open a new thread there, previous discussions don't seem to have generated anything helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SheriffIsInTown. You have new messages at Talk:2015 Mina stampede.
Message added 15:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ayub407^talk 15:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

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]

Hey why you reverted my edits in Bahawalpur page? There are many colleges not only one UMAIR SHAREEEF (talk) 09:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@UMAIR SHAREEEF:They are unsourced to begin with and not notable as well but even if you have sources, still it's unencyclopedic to include all of them on the page. Your edits were reverted as WP:OR. Moreover, we must follow a manual of style when editing and cannot leave our text all in capital letters anywhere on page. Sheriff (report) 12:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is shameful that there is no name of 127 years old institution of Bahawalpur I don't want to comment on it. My writing is not good as you people but I want you people to research more about Bahawalpur.

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]

Dear friend, I hope you are well. Maybe we could collaborate on the editing of this page. I'm a native English speaker and can help with the copy-editing. What do you think? My regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 10:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GorgeCustersSabre: Thanks for your offer of help but i am not sure why you are having me add the ref on every line of the page, it seems silly. It looks like you are not doing any effort to look at the refs/sources already present in the page before removing the text that i enter. I hope i did not upset you with my summary line earlier. If you really want to help then i would suggest that we should not have that one source mentioned ten times in the page. I have some editing experience myself as well but i have never seen someone bully me like this for references while all of the information is already present in sources and it takes little to no effort to verify. Also it would be a great help if you cn tag the text which you do not find the ref for instead removing it immediately. Sheriff (report) 13:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I acted toward you in good faith, yet you rebuff my effort to help and call me a bully. Listen please: your edits were really sloppy (usually unreferenced or poorly referenced) and poorly written, and you seem more intent on creating a fan page than a neutral, reliable and well written encyclopedia page. So be it. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the article completely beforte jumping in and editing and demanding references. You ask for references for the term India and British India, may I point out to you the section headed British India and the Princely States which quotes and references the Interpretation Act of 1889. Now will you please stop your slow motion edit warring? Dabbler (talk) 13:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See the Interpretation Act 1889, so far i am unable to find the term "British India" in whichever sources i checked it in. Please remove it yourself from the lead or point me to a source. Sheriff (report) 13:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1889/63/pdfs/ukpga_18890063_en.pdf Section 18, sub-sections 4 and 5. And an apology would be nice. Dabbler (talk) 14:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that was an error on my part, i thought searching with Ctrl+F would give me the results within that PDF but somehow it did not render them. Sheriff (report) 14:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. Dabbler (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Muhammad, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: You can read his highly abusive edit summary. Also there are many highly nationalistic edit summaries. --Human3015^TALK  12:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Human3015: My abusive edit summary? Do you know what was reverted with that edit summary? A highly abusive content. I didn't expect that you will make an issue out of this but thanks anyway, I will look out from now on. I just got carried away after seeing that text. Sheriff (report) 17:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That IP was vandal IP, you should have reverted him without giving any edit summary. If you are giving same kind of edit summary then it is also a vandalism. In your edit summary you were abusing that IP, as per Wikipedia rules we don't abuse vandal users too. --Human3015^TALK  17:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to be funny with that edit summary, I thought it would make people laugh, did not expect that it would be viewed as an abuse. :) Sheriff (report) 02:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33

• I am also notifying you about discretionary sanctions related to India-Pakistan-Afghanistan related articles. Nothing bad in it, I have been also notified for the same in past and every user who edits India-Pakistan related article frequently is notified for it. I saw somewhere that you were saying "Pakistan thinks that Kashmiris are Pakistanis, so we can't write Kashmiri people as Indian". See, such kind of behaviour is not allowed on these topics. If any editor do such kind of editing frequently then he/she gets topic banned for 6 months in initial stages. Topic banned means that editor can't edit topics related to India-Pakistan. Ok, there are some norms while editing India-Pakistan articles. Here we think that Azad Kashmir is part of Pakistan and Jammu & Kashmir is part of India. We write Azad Kashmir in state and territories of Pakistan and Jammu & Kashmir in state and territories of India. On such articles we ignore what is view of Pakistan and India regarding these territories. They call each other's Kashmir as "occupied Kashmir", that is also not allowed to write even if you provide hundreds of sources. So you should know such things. There many other things. But here now you are aware about discretionary sanctions. Editors with Pro-pakistani or Pro-Indian nationalistic views gets banned. Many very experienced users have banned till now. So be aware. --Human3015^TALK  17:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Human3015: Is there a policy governing that or I have to take your word. Moreover, I was being neutral when I was making that edit. My point of view was that let's not write "Indian Kashmiri mother" for Adnan Sami's mother since she was born in disputed territory but I did not advocate to write "Pakistani Kashmiri mother" either, neutral would have been to just write "Kashmiri mother" but you took a wrong view on that without completely understanding my point of view. Please let me know the policy governing discretionary sanctions regarding Pakistan-India-Afghanistan pages so I know what to refrain from and what is allowed. Thanks! Sheriff (report) 17:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no special editing restrictions beyond standard discretionary sanctions. Reading Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Guidance_for_editors might help. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheriff, people from Azad Kashmir can also be called as "Kashmiri", so in above case of Adnan, it was important to write his mother is from Indian side of Kashmir so that why "Indian" is important. For example Parvez Rasool is an international cricketer from Kashmir. In his case we write "He is Indian cricketer" not "Kashmri cricketer". "Nationality" of people is important when we write about them. All people of Jammu and Kashmir holds Indian passport, so when we mention someone from them on Wikipedia then it is important to mention their nationality. --Human3015^TALK  17:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting argument. As you know, I have argued with Mar4d that Azad Kashmiris should be called "Azad Kashmiris," and not simply "Kashmiris." If that suggestion is respected, there would be no need to say "Indian Kashmiri" for the ethnic Kashmiris. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Katie^talk 01:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]

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]

As I read WP:NLIST, members must be individually notable in order to be included in standalone lists. The names I deleted did not have Wikipedia articles and per WP:WTAF should first have ones in order to be placed on lists. A reference is not a substitute for an article, because only a separate article can undergo a scrutiny as regards facts, notability, etc. The passage you quoted only says that in order for a person (who already has an article!) to be included on a list of, say, actors, a reliable source must attest that the person indeed was an actor. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 15:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, read WP:NLIST and WP:WTAF carefully, where does it say on any of them that to include in the list, a person must have an article? WP:WTAF only talks about refraining from red-linking but it does not say that you must create an article before you can include someone in the list without red-linking. WP:NLIST clearly talks about reliable sources which are good enough to establish notability, it does not say that you must create an article to establish notability. Sheriff (report) 16:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Inclusion within stand-alone lists should be determined by the notability criteria above" (that is, by WP:NBIO). Which means that non-notable people cannot be included, and notability can only be tested through creating an article. In no way does it allow to establish notability by way of footnote to the list. kashmiri ^TALK 16:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are not reading the policy properly, it says "Notability is required to create an article", it does not say otherwise that "To prove notability or effectively test it, you must create an article." I will request you to revert yourself please as those entries were supported by sources. Sheriff (report) 16:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly haven't read the articles linked from NLIST, especially WP:Namechecking. Namechecking is precisely what you are doing in this list article, and "is not cool".

Of the three sources quoted, two are trivial mentions insufficient to establish even WP:SIGNIFICANCE, only Rabab Hashim might fulfill notability criteria if not for the source - she is heavily promoted only by her employer, GeoTV.

Thus, a revert wouldn't do good to Wikipedia. kashmiri ^TALK 16:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A quick reply on Rabab Hashim, Geo TV is not her employer, actresses or actors in Pakistan are not employed by TV channels rather they work in serials of almost all channels. I see her dramas on ARY Digital which is Geo TV's competitor. Sheriff (report) 17:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your claim about WP:Namechecking, all of those three do not fall under that policy as they are not sisters/daughters of someone notable, they are themselves popular actresses by profession. Sheriff (report) 18:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring at Muhammad, take it to the talk page and find consensus. Further edit warring will result in a block without any more warning. HighInBC 16:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: That is harsh and one sided, I see you added no notice to other edit-warring party, he is the one who added the text on Baha'i views without consensus, the consensus was against inclusion and that text was removed by two other editors before me, check the edit history. Sheriff (report) 16:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have reverted 3 times today. I don't see anyone else who has reverted more than a single time. I am not going to give someone an edit warring warning for a single revert. 3 reverts on the other hand is 1 less than 4 which is a WP:3RR violation. It is a contentious article and it is especially important that we avoid edit warring there. HighInBC 16:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: That should be counted as one revert when it comes to edit-warring since there were intermediary edits in between by other editors and not all edits were regarding same material. Sheriff (report) 16:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revert 1, revert 2, revert 3. From Wikipedia:Edit warring, An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. emphasis mine.

I see 3 reverts based on the definition given in policy. Now that I have clarified policy do you still think I am miscounting? If I have misunderstood something I am happy to hear how. HighInBC 16:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: Revert 1 is not a revert rather it was a new edit by me, i did not revert anyone on that one.

Revert 2 had intermediary edits between the original edit and my revert.

Revert 3 I reverted myself as to actually pacify the situation and to stop edit-warring, this should be considered a peace-making, good-will gesture instead of part of edit-warring. Sheriff (report) 16:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revert 1 did undo the work of another editor and is a revert. I see in the history that you undid several other edits. The count is confusing as there are intermingled edits. I am glad that you self-reverted and stopped edit warring. I think we can leave this alone now and just disagree about how many reverts there were. HighInBC 17:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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 Ponyo^{bons 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 Ponyo^{bons 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 photosubmissionwikimedia.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 Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can i ask him to email me or he must email to photosubmissionwikimedia.org? Sheriff | report | 23:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright holder needs to confirm the release.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons 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 Ponyo^{bons 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 Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you reverted one of my edits to Islam. Wikipedia isn't an instruction book on how to perform the Hajj, and the grammar related to that paragraph should reflect the fact that. Starting sentences with "Then," a conjunction, is not proper English grammar. See MOS:NOTE. Furthermore, reverting edits that aren't clearly vandalism should really not happen. "You should avoid reverting edits other than vandalism most of the time," as per WP:STATUSQUO. I know I'm speaking to the choir since you have Rollback, but you should still consider changing your edit practices to favor keeping additions over removing them. For more information, I suggest reading WP:ROWN. Lucas "nicatronTg" Nicodemus (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas "nicatronTg" Nicodemus: That is one upset message. Where does it say that edits other than WP:VANDALISM cannot be reverted. I gave a reason for my revert and all editors do not have to agree with each other. Disagreements exist everywhere. When you changed the text, you technically reverted someone, were you reverting a vandalism? I still believe my text is better than yours. I will invite you to take the proper recourse and take that to Talk:Islam. You got to calm down dude. Sheriff | report | 15:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't -- it says that reverting should be used sparingly, with restraint. That particular section is in an unencyclopedic tone, which is technically incorrect for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Once again, I invite you to read the pages I linked and familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia style guidelines pertaining to grammar. Lucas "nicatronTg" Nicodemus (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am curious as to why you deleted Nihari as a repetition of Biryani. They are different dishes, each with an individual article. Richard Harvey (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Harvey: When I added it, I did not notice that it's already mentioned in the middle of paragraph but the source I was looking at, was giving more prominence to Nihari than Biryani. I tend to work on that paragraph and add/remove sourced/unsourced material later. Sheriff | report | 01:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting as since posting my message I have noted that the entire section you pasted in was copied from:- http://karshi.trade/city though the source didn't have Nirhani at the begining. Unfortunately having now realised it is a copyvio I am inclined to delete the entire section, even though I copyedited what you pasted in it cannot be changed enough to warrant keeping it. Richard Harvey (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Harvey: Didn't realize that it was copyvio, I took it from Yamaguchi先生's removal edit, please note http://karshi.trade/city might be a copy of Wikipedia. Sheriff | report | 01:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked that url, it's other way around, surely the whole page is copy of an older version of Karachi article. Sheriff | report | 02:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay; He must have removed the original for a reason. I've been looking through other sections of the article and matching them to that website and there are many other potential issues. As you say it may be a mirror site and I noticed that it was updated today, so I will ask Yamaguchi先生 to check it out. I see in the Karachi edit history a certain user name who is blocked as a sockpuppet of an indef banned editor. Just to be safe I will revert the Karachi article, it can always be added back. :) Richard Harvey (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Harvey: He removed it because it was unsourced and I tend to source it. Its not a copyvio as there are certain websites which copy from Wikipedia as well and that website is not some well known or reputable site anyway. Sheriff | report | 04:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why the Hussain Haqqani was attacked all of a sudden. Most of the text added by the IP was WP:COPYVIO from WP:NEWSORG opinion columns, which aren't WP:RS anyway. And the Visual Hawk looks like the sock of some old POV-pusher. If it were me, I would just go back to your old version from October. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, without seeing your notice, I reverted to revision by ClueBot, I will review IP's edits to see where they stand. Sheriff | report | 16:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3 Do you know whose sock is VisionHawk or you were just guessing? Sheriff | report | 17:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The section was made highly biased, we need to ensure that a neutral point of view is presented about Hussain Haqqani despite his highly controversial standing. The content added is referenced and unreferenced content has been removed. VisionHawk

@SheriffIsInTown

The content is not referenced rather its copy pasted content, and is highly biased we need to ensure a balanced view point on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VisionHawk (talk • contribs) 16:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what you consider biased and what others consider biased! Sheriff | report | 17:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SheriffIsInTown

I fully agree with you, infact I believe the previous content was more biased then the nature of the current one. Come to talk page of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by VisionHawk (talk • contribs) 17:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SheriffIsInTown

I am still waiting for you to come to the talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by VisionHawk (talk • contribs) 17:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheriff, I was just guessing. He/she certainly doesn't appear "new." I am not sure why there is this sudden spurt in the edits to the page today. There don't seem to be any new events that triggered it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note there is some common editing on the article and two other articles, with 91.212.53.252. Which is an educational establishment that was recently blocked for 14 days. Richard Harvey (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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? SQL^{Query 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]

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]

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]

Hi,

The reason you did not dind where the source said Mandal Jat is the link to the source brings you to page 118, not 117 (scroll up to 117). Secondly, page 27 in the Annals of Kannal mentions his families Jat origin, not page 31. Also note, that although typically many Punjabis' spell Jat as Jutt or Jatt, in Wikipedia Jat is the standardized form. And lastly, Marhal, Mandal, or Mahal are derivatives of the name of the same clan (view the Marhal page). I don't think I can make things clearer than this.

---Thank you Nawabmalhi (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nawabmalhi: I did read page 117 and 118 both before reverting you, both pages have no mention of Liaquat Ali Khan and no mention of words "Jat" or "Marhal", they do mention "Mandal" in relation to some Nawab Azmat Ali Khan. I did not get chance to look at page 27 yet, once I do, I will let you know whether your edit can stay or not since I see you already reverted me again. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 05:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SheriffIsInTown Its talking about Liaquat Ali Khans family, The specific name mentioned was Nawab Azmat Ali Khan, the patriarch of the Ali Khan Nawabs of Karnal, but is talking about the Ali Khan's in general that is why it is written he is born in a Jat family. Nawab Azmat Ali Khan was Liaquat Ali Khan's uncle who died childless and was suceeded by Liaquat's father Nawab Rustam Ali Khan, who was suceeded by Liaquat. Again,Marhal, Mandal, or Mahal are derivatives of the name of the same clan (view the Marhal page).---Thank you Nawabmalhi (talk) 06:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I read your response earlier. It says they were acting on a previous clause in the constitution in 1973 to promote Urdu. They haven't changed the laws yet though, it still stands as it is: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2015/0729/Why-Pakistan-is-changing-its-official-language-from-English-to-Urdu.-Akhila3151996 (talk) 06:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what the sources say, one source says, "Urdu to replace English as official language" the other says "PM orders implementation of Urdu as official language in government departments", so what's left there. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Can you kindly specify on what basis and under what rules is Habel reverting my edits? Which rules of Wiki BLP am I violating by presenting sourced information? How can I stop him from reverting my edits over and over again? --GreenBeret65 (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A specific POV is being pushed by some editors on the Hussain Haqqani page, I might be wrong but I believe them to be Kautilya and Hebel, time and time again other editors have voiced their concerns about the biased nature of the very article to which we have reverted to right now, even so and so that the prime witness Mansoor Ijaz was forced to come to the talk page and urged the mentioned editors to stop pushing a specific POV. Is there anything which can be done? Especially when the judgement of the commission which goes again Hussain haqqani is not even mentioned. A sinister attempt is also being made to link the memogate scandal with Osama`s killing infact the very section of the memogate starts by mentioning the Osama`s killing? Why is this being done, I cant tell but this surely needs to be redone. I am new to Wiki and would like to know what is it that can be done especially when the content violates the integrity of a fine person like Mansoor Ijaz?

@GreenBeret65: I am sorry, I have so much in my watchlist that I am not getting a chance to review what's being done on Husain Haqqani page lately but I definitely disagree with the revert which was done by Hebel on my last edit. I want to give a meticulous response on the talk page for which I need some time and preparation. At this time, if we include you and the IP, we almost have 60/40 division of opinion. Regarding, WP:BLP, people are using the interpretations which suit their edits. I will also encourage you to voice your opinion at Talk:Husain Haqqani instead of my page. not that you are not welcomed to do that but it's better to voice it where it matters. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sheriff I am under consideration for being banned by the Wikipedia, how can this be? Only for not allowing someone to push a specific POV? GreenBeret65 (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am unaware of complete circumstances thus unable to give my opinion but I know that bit that you cannot be blocked if you don't violate a policy which calls for a block. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sheriff, I hope you don't mind if I drop this here. GreenBeret65, first of all see [WP:BLOCKBANDIFF]]; there's a huge difference between blocking and banning, and it's not hypothetical. Second, no one is threatening to ban you. Third, no one is threatening to block you, though you were warned about edit warring, and edit warring can lead to a block--long or short. In your case, right now, if you were to continue, probably short. Fourth, and Sheriff, this concerns you too, about these numbers: it's not just numbers, it's also quality of argument. If you're referring to the IP who totally messed up the article beginning with this edit, they don't have a leg to stand on (also, they're blocked for a while because of their inexcusable behavior and their BLP violations). I could explain at length what's wrong with their edits--it would start with faulty grammar and punctuation and generally terrible English, a second remark might be about the absolutely unacceptable tone ("The trouble is,..." as if this is Wikipedia's opinion), and it could end with their presenting non-neutral information as if it were fact. So that IP, don't count them. Finally, there's a lot less interpretative room in the BLP than you may think; it's easy to say "it's all interpretation" but backing that up is not so simple. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that SLAF is a part of Sri Lanka government.Also I am just stating what SLAF said. Warrior Covert (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of the JF-17 page name - there is a naming convention, established through firm WP:CONSENSUS, that aircraft articles are named using "Manufacturer+Designation+Name" for consistency across all aircraft articles. "CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder" is therefore the name that the establshed standard through consensus requires the page to be at, no matter the search hit results. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger: I learned that after i put in speedy deletion for the redirect but i was reviewing that policy on aircraft names and i think the page name is not set according to that but i will get back to you on that later after i learn more. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is set according to that. Manufacturer (CAC and PAC), designation (JF-17), name (Thunder). This was established after a lengthy debate to determine consensus over five years ago. It's been challenged and it's stood firm; the current page title is, per the consensus standard, the correct one - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sheriff, it is not a personal attack, its 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. Its like you are looking to pick fights. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 05:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You moved "2016 North Korean nuclear test" to "2016 North Korea nuclear test." I think this was in error, as I explained on the talk page. You may wish to respond. NPguy (talk) 02:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I am really surprised that you thought I created those sock puppets. We have content dispute and I have nothing personal against you. Cheers! Vinegarymass911 (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Vinegarymass911, No, I did not think that you were behind those accounts but it was important for me to detail the background especially when I thanked you for an edit on 2016 Ouagadougou attacks and those abusive users thanked me for my response to your "Oppose" vote on Talk:2016 Ouagadougou attacks. I thought these were interesting circumstances and needed to be mentioned as I also thought that someone might have been trying to create a bad blood between you and me and trying to implicate you in this. I am sorry if you thought that my intention was otherwise. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, glad that was cleared up. Quite devious to thank you on a opposing vote to me from those accounts. I look forward to working with you. With RegardsVinegarymass911 (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please return to WP:SPI and give some resoning for your quick CU requests. However, please note that the privacy policy will likely prevent us from revealing the information that you're asking for. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I must apologize for not seeing your reply prior to the request being archived. I can tell you that the location was many thousands of kilometers away from Auckland. If you have any other questions, I will answer if I can, but it may take some time as I'm currently on vacation. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DoRD: Can you at least tell me the country name? Auckland was just an example though!

Also, why this (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jinnah ka lund choos) is not showing up on the main page under list of open requests, I needed to add more suspects to it! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If a sentence you've added to the Gomutra article has been challenged on the talk page and removed, you can join the discussion there. You can't just keep adding it to another article.

Feel free to add the bit about the cola drink elsewhere in the article. It just doesn't belong in the section on religion. The fact that the drink is being produced in a Hindu-majority country has as little to with Hinduism as, say, the beef produced in Germany has to do with Lutheranism. Uanfala (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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:

• Allchin, Bridget (1997). Origins of a Civilization: The Prehistory and Early Archaeology of South Asia. New York: Viking. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Bridget Allchin; Raymond Allchin (1982), The Rise of Civilization in India and Pakistan, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-28550-6
• Dani, Ahmad Hassan (1984). Short History of Pakistan (Book 1). University of Karachi. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Dani, Ahmad Hassan; Mohen, J-P. (eds.) (1996). History of Humanity, Volume III, From the Third Millennium to the Seventh Century BC. New York/Paris: Routledge/UNESCO. ISBN 0-415-09306-6. {{cite book}}: |author2= has generic name (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Kenoyer, Jonathan Mark (1998). Ancient cities of the Indus Valley Civilisation. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-577940-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Kenoyer, Jonathan M.; Heuston, Kimberley Burton (2005), The Ancient South Asian World, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-522243-2
• Jane McIntosh (2008), The Ancient Indus Valley: New Perspectives, ABC-CLIO, ISBN 978-1-57607-907-2
• Mughal, Mohammad Rafique (1997). Ancient Cholistan, Archaeology and Architecture. Ferozesons. ISBN 969-0-01350-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Parpola, Asko (19 May 2005), Study of the Indus Script (PDF) {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Pittman, Holly (1984). Art of the Bronze Age: southeastern Iran, western Central Asia, and the Indus Valley. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. ISBN 9780870993657.
• Possehl, Gregory L. (11 November 2002), The Indus Civilization: A Contemporary Perspective, Rowman Altamira, ISBN 978-0-7591-1642-9
• Wright, Rita P. (2009), The Ancient Indus: Urbanism, Economy, and Society, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-57219-4, retrieved 29 September 2013

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]

Thanks for your great efforts on KPK province article. But language map is incorrect. As per Census 1998 Tehsil demographic data. Kohistan all tehsil are Kohistani Langauge majiority. All three tehsil of D I khan are Punjabi ( Saraiki dialect) majiority. Mansehra all Tehsil are Punjabi (Hindko Dialect Majiority). This map is even ignoring Tank, Nowshera, Kohat, Peshawer city centrals having Punjabi (Hindko/ Saraiki dialects) majiority as reflected in Urban demographic of these Tehsils. Tiger khan has up loaded a pro pashtun map. Thanks Burnfloo (talk) 07:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Burnfloo: The map was added by another editor. I just kept it in good faith not being that familiar with demographics of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa personally. I will double check it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 09:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you are adding some content and reference it with bbc report but remember that its just a Media report it does not means that they conducted a servey or census and they know the exact figure. Now 1998 census figures should be kept ,in 2016 government of Pakistan is going to start census across Pakistam, So you can then update languages and population info according to latest sources as Census report is submitted--HassanKhan95 (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HassanKhan95: Dude, BBC is a reliable thrid-party secondary source in this matter and i am quite right to use that. The source being used for 1998 census figures is a primary source and should not be used. How about i suggest the same thing to you that keep 2015 figures based on BBC report and then replace them with 2016 figures from a secondary source when they are available and as for your summary line that you "understand my purpose", no you do not have an iota of sense about my purpose. My purpose is to improve Wikipedia across the board with a major focus on Wikipedia: WikiProject Pakistan pages. I have been accused of many things while editing and i will wear whatever hat you will put on my head happily as well. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sheriff is right. The numbers don't have to come from census data and the BBC could be using other estimates. I'd go with the recent BBC numbers over 17 year old census data. --regentspark (comment) 21:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have done language table just because of your great efforts using your insertions/ sources and relevant langauage articles on wikipedia. Please give a feed back. Burnfloo (talk) 09:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Burnfloo: You inserted some original research into it, I will see how others react to it but to me it looks good overall. I might make some minor adjustments and do some research to find better sources. If something wouldn't line up according to a reliable source then we might have to make more changes.

Major Issues which I can quickly point out are:

1. Mention of Arabic not supported by source and according to my knowledge it does not have much influence and understanding beyond offcourse reading The Holy Quran, even that many people do not understand without a translation in their first language
2. Highlighting Khowar over other Chitrali languages, wordpress not a reliable source
3. Dialect of Pashto not supported by a source
4. Area percentage is an original research but calculation might be correct as we know which language is spoken in which district, according to my knowledge, this is called WP:SYNTH but I might be wrong because I never read that policy myself. Lol

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feed back. specific points Reply is as follows

1. Arabic is thought in class 6,7 and 8, Religious Schools (Madrasas) and also in diffrent Hajj/ Umrah piligram courses
2. Khowar is lingua franca in Chitral for other minor dardic languages in the region.
3. Dialect of Pashto details are available in ethnologue, wiki plus many language books of pashto. Bannu / Waziri is very diffrent. I can understand them all.
4. Area percentage is a good faith edit with intentions to help language students around the world.

I will try to get some sources to make them more pro policy, Thank you Burnfloo (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		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]

Regarding your comment here, there is no separate check for sleepers, they either turn up in the course of an investigation or they don't.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: Okay, thank you, i did not know that. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a common misconception!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please share your email. I will attach the excel converted version of CSV file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.32.33.213 (talk) 06:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

39.32.33.213, I don't want the extracted CVS, I want to extract it myself. Give me the url to download the software which is able to read that data. You mentioned in a summary line that there is a software which can be downloaded and it is able to read the data. I downloaded the actual data files but don't have the software to read into them.

@Mike Rosoft: Were you actually able to read the data before reverting saying that "the reference does not support the content"? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I have downloaded the file; it appears to be some kind of a database file. It does contain some readable strings, but I wasn't able to find the string "Quetta" in it. (I might be wrong; just like you, I don't seem to have the software which can open the file for real.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The linked wesite [5] contains a link to an interactive map, and the data is there. (Select "Balochistan", then "Quetta District".) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Rosoft: It is so sad that instead of appreciating my good faith hard work to put Demographic details of all parts of Pakistan you guys dis trusted me. Thanks God now after understanding this link you guys must be clear about my good faith editing. I had been facing idiot Nationalists like Users HassanKhan95 Adilswati Power22 Usmankhan plus few IPs including recent one [6] . either these all are socks or they share face book link. Adilswati used Pashto language to tell others his facebook id which is here www.facebook.com/Kalia.swati and instructed others to use more mobile based unknown IPs to fight for Pashtun fight on wikipedia. Similarly there is a indian agency RAW employee group which includes Users Kautilya3 Human2015 and few others. Their oldest edit show that they had direct interest in a Hindu radical extremist organisation RSS. With the same radical thinking they have totally controlled all sensitive articles for example Kashmir Conflict . They always put India favoured substance and delete others edit (including sourced content) using clever logics. Wikipedia has now become a Joke in hands of these jokers. Let me warn you that these people are so clever that even if you both try your best still you will not able to stop them from doing so . May be they will get you blocked instead. ¬¬¬¬

@39.32.33.213: I have this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adilswati open for days now. If you have any evidence, please submit there, especially I think this Facebook gathering might add value to it. Seems like CheckUser forgot it after putting it on hold! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Rosoft: I couldn't display Quetta City data, I could only display the district data. When I click on city link, it gives me a "500 error fetching query", were you able to display and confirm city data?

@39.32.33.213: You can still give me software download link, which can parse that .img or .mdb file as interactive map only have data down to district level! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It displayed an error for me as well. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Rosoft: and SheriffIsInTown , in 2001 when I was a child still I was very mature book reader so I use to visit an university Library where I got Pakistan Census 1998 district wise booklets. I was always a demographic researcher so I noted all important demographics on my diary. Interestingly still I have all those break ups in my child hood diary. I tried to use them on Wikipedia in good faith then every one asked for references some one blocked me as language expert. I don't know how they plug me as Language expert sock. Any ways I could not found Pakistan Census online. But in October 2015 I got this wonderful web site. I downloaded Tehsil & district breaks ups and found them correct when compared with my diary. I have changed my lab top so could not remember the soft ware that could read & convert these database . But that software was a limited version that only allowed to extract 20 fields at a time i.e. 20 Tehsils / Districts. I used my intelligence and rearranged data repeatedly either province wise or alphabets wise or step deletion, to extract all district / Tehsil data in to excel. Coming to Quetta district it has only one Tehsil and that is Quetta City and Saddar Sub division. As far as City is concerned if I put the language breakup of city on wikipedia then Pashtuns are going to kill me (Not a joke take it seriously) because majority of local Pashtun and Balochs live in rural area and city (Urban) demographic is Punjabi 26% Pashtun 23% Hazargi 21% Balochi 20% Udru 8% Others 2%. ¬¬¬¬

Don't worry, some day we will find the reliable sources and Pashtuns will not be able to kill us then, lol. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts to fight vandalism. You should apply for page protection otherwise Adilswati IP socks will keep their nasty edit war. 39.32.5.246 (talk) 11:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and we need to protect it from LanguageXpert IP socks as well because he is more cleverer than Adilswati. He has such an ability to adopt different personalities and has access to such a wide range of IPs. As a matter of fact, he is playing good cop, bad cop across several pages still but i will get to him. No worries. When, I am in the town, there will be no place to hide for these socks. :) Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You contributed edits to the "European migrant crisis" page. I invite you to the removal proposal discussion at WP:in the news/Candidates. --George Ho (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About your reverts, I bet you got my private message in regards with the Divisions of Pakistan thing on the List of districts of Pakistan article. My apologies in advance if I was trying to group each province or territory with a "Division" column. Which by the way, I'm working on the rest of the other divisions. jlog3000 (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnluisocasio: Sorry for the reverts but i did revert myself after realizing that your information was correct. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok. Good thing I clarified some sources a bit. I'm in the process on fixing the federal territories of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. Only the FATA and the Islamabad Capital Territory don't have divisions. jlog3000 (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hey, I am a sucker for maps. Was going through your discussion about the interactive maps, so want to bother you if there's a way to export the data from these maps to be directly used with Google Earth?—TripWire ^ʞlɐʇ 16:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TripWire: No idea but will let you know if I find a way. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

You reverted information from Larkana's section of 'Sports' and complete removal of 'Economy' from the article, without troubling yourself to raise your concern with me either on my talk-page or on Larkana's!

In the 'Edit summary' you talked about 'source and citation'; but somehow inserted 'Punjabi language' out of nowhere in the 'Demography' section... without troubling to provide or contribute by inserting source or deleting the whole section on basis of unverified claims (just as you did with 'Economy')? (SarfarazLarkanian 01:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC))

Your recent editing history at Research and Analysis Wing shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. - MBlaze Lightning -talk! 07:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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. 

• I also want to bring it to your attention that MBlaze Lightning is involved in mass removal of content, from the 1965 Indo-Pak war article ^[1]. The editors should pay special attention to that as well. He has already removed well sourced content, relating to Pakistan and is pushing a specific POV based on the same nationalistic rhetoric which he champions in his rather bigoted posts. I hope he can be banned as per Wiki policies for being a POV pusher.

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]

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:

• TalhaZubairButt [7], [8]; Faizan [9], TripWire [10], and you [11], [12].

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

• Volunteer Marek [13], MBlaze Lightning [14], me [15], and Ghatus [16].

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]

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

LjL (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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;

• Fareed30; "The guy in chat rooms was an ultra Pakistani nationalist living in Australia who hated everyone, especially Indians and Afghans"
• Krzyhorse22; "These guys are not here to build Wikipedia but to fight with anyone who they believe is Afghan or Indian."
• Krzyhorse22; "Him being a Pakistani, living in Australia, adding "Afghan terrorists" and removing sourced references to Afghan from famous Indians means that he is disrupting Wikipedia and should be blocked. In this case you guys are acting as a gang of aggressive pro-Pakistani P.O.V. pushers falsifying information (...)"
• Krzyhorse22; "He is constantly pushing anti-Indian and anti-Afghan POVs everywhere and that is definately a quick blockable violation in Wikipedia. Not to mention edit-warring with everyone. I also suspect that he's abusing socks, from Australia."

As well as these, for example;

• Fareed30 (CU blocked puppet) (...) with Jahangir Khan, a retired Pakistani squash player. There's no reliable/verifiable source that explains Jehangir as being an ethnic Pashtun. I never heard of any Pashtun male with "Jehangir" as his first name, and Khan is many times used by non-Pashtuns (i.e. Ismail Khan and Genghis Khan). Jehangir Khan does not even possess Pashtun physical feature.
• Krzyhorse22 (new sock) (..) 'no proof Jahangir Khan is Pashtun. Many non-Pashtuns have Khan last names and live in Pakistan.
• Mohd Rfus (CU blocked puppet) source does not mention "pashtun" (for Jahangir Khan); many NON-pashtuns carry the last name khan ie Genghis Khan, Amir Khan, Musa Khan, Ismail Khan)"

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]

Comments like that should never be made on article talk pages. These pages exist for discussing improvement of content. If you have concerns about editors, they should be raised on appropriate noticeboards. In addition, some of your claims are false. I never said on the RfC what you claim I said. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this page to comment on the RfC you posted, i.e. on your request. Complaining about this is strange. Naturally, after looking at the RfC, I checked what else is happening around. One thing I saw was your quest to remove certain relevant and sourced information from multiple pages like here. My very best wishes (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As about your concern, yes, admins know (obviously). I think that makes user FreeatlastChitchat a lot safer. In theory, all actions by admins should be based on the rules and provided diffs. But this is only in theory. Perhaps you did not notice, but even very obvious 3RR violations recently reported by VM were left without action. I saw people being sanctioned on AE, even though their edits were very clearly made outside the area covered by discretionary sanctions, and so on. A prejudice? Yes, possibly. But admins frequently do not act by the rules if they think something should (not) be done for the good of the project. The reason? WP:IAR. My very best wishes (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 [17]) is something else.) Time to let it go. Bishonen | talk 16:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Please see Talk:Kashmir_conflict#Editing_Restrictions --regentspark (comment) 17:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I never received it. However, if it's what you sent to the committee, I saw that. You've probably been told by now that you're barking up the wrong tree. Hope that's settled. If your address is a Yahoo one that would explain why it didn't get to me. If you want to discuss this some more, please try to email me again, ok? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Yes, the one to the committee. Sorry, i did not understand what you meant by "barking up the wrong tree". Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Hello. I noticed you recently edited the Kenya: Economy section with information that does not appear to be useful, possibly in violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. I've removed your edit. MediaKill13 (talk) 06:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think, its not neutral? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 09:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's meant to give people a bad impression of Kenyans. Plus I don't think it should be put in the main 'Economy' section. Maybe it can be added in a separate 'Corruption' section, because I feel like it's distorting the main focus from the actual Kenyan economy. MediaKill13 (talk) 05:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MediaKill13: No, its not meant to do that and we do not WP:CENSOR anything on Wikipedia. I can give you many examples on Wikipedia where topics which give bad or negative impression to certain subjects are covered, we do not need articles which give an impression of WP:FANPAGE. Starting a new section for one or two lines wouldn't be a good idea. Its the perfect place where it is, it tells where a big portion of meanly earned income goes! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 09:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The section wouldn't be two lines, since there is a lot of documented info on corruption in Kenya. I think the whole thing should be more like the 'Child labour and prostitution' section; it's an aspect of the economy, but it's not introduced in the main 'Economy' headline. MediaKill13 (talk) 10:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MediaKill13: I am okay for putting it under a different and more relevant section if someone is willing to expand that section but i am against its complete removal under the pretext of "bad impression". Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Williams is an actress and a comedy writer. I have removed this edit based on the source not being a reliable source. In addition to the source being unreliable I know from personal experience that this is highly exaggerated, or perhaps referring to an unrepresentative sample group. HighInBC 13:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Read this: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Snooker#Mid-match_frame_.26_match_scores. I have more to do than to come over here and "bully" someone I know nothing about. If someone says live updates are not allowed (and none were made in other matches), it's very likely that you're the one doing the wrong thing with those updates. Anyway, that's just a heads up. Bye. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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]

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

Hi, i am from Gilgit , Pakistan and i need your help in a matter related to my edits on page Gilgit Baltistan here [[18]] 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. [[19]]

Check these two edits, one by me and one by him. What makes you feel out of these two edits. [[20]] [[21]]

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]

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, --Neutrality^talk 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. Neutrality^talk 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. Neutrality^talk 23:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 --Neutrality^talk 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. Neutrality^talk 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. Neutrality^talk 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. Neutrality^talk 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]

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! 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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

It had been extended edit war by Uanfala [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] .

• 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 [27].

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]

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]

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.

• Leade: Saraiki (سرائیکی Sarā'īkī, often spelt Siraiki/Seraiki) also known as Southern Panjabi or Multani ^[1] is a Punjabi variant spoken by 10% of Pakistan’s population. ^{[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]} It belongs to Western Punjabi (Lahnda) group of Northwestern Indo-Aryan languages ^[10] Saraiki is hotly contested as mere a dialect of Punjabi or separate language.^[11] While regarded by many as a dialect of Punjabi ^{[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]}. it has supported a movement to claim for recognition as a separate language.^[22] Saraiki is to a high degree mutually intelligible with Standard dialect of Punjabi ^[23][24] and shares with it a large portion of its vocabulary and morphology, while at the same time in its phonology ^[25] and important grammatical features in common with the Sindhi language spoken to the south.^[24]. It is spoken by 20 million people^[26][a] in the province of Punjab, southern Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and border regions of North Sindh and Eastern Balochistan in Pakistan. Multani is a "dialect" of Siraiki in the same way that Siraiki is a "dialect" of Lahnda, which is then a "dialect" of Punjabi, which in turn is a "dialect" of Indo-Aryan. In this sense both Siraiki and Standard Panjabi are "dialects" of a "Greater Punjabi" macrolanguage.^[23]

• 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]

After third requested move decision. Still NOT MOVED. Now it is time to restore pre-dispute version of Saraiki dialect [28] in the light of Dispute resolution decision i.e. Revert all Language edits, Saraiki is a dialect as per RFC. [29]. For leade you can add further sources like [30], [31], [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40][41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.188.73.215 (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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

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]

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!

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]

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 | to avoid messing up templates.

Please change

[[User:SheriffIsInTown|'''<font color="blue">Sh</font><font color="red">eri</font><font color="blue">ff</font>''']] | [[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]

I have added references on this page [49], 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]

There are two bare references at this page [50]. 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]

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]

Please label reference 2 on this page [51]. 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]

Pls look into this page [52] where reference number 16 is a bare url. Regards (45.116.232.0 (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

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]

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 [53], 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 [54] 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 [55]... 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]

Pls label reference number 24 on this page [56]. TIA (45.116.233.27 (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

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]

Pls label reference # 21 on this page [57] thankyou (45.116.232.53 (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

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]

Hello. I have added citation #33 to this page [58] Can you please label (103.228.157.65 (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Ive added couple of sources please label [59] (45.116.232.25 (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Please label ref 2 on this page [60] (119.157.246.209 (talk) 12:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]

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]