User talk:NadirAli/Archive 5

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite

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.} 11:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 22 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Karachi Comic Con page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, NadirAli. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DRN

Why don't you use DRN ?AksheKumar (talk) 06:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Science of Star Wars listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Science of Star Wars. Since you had some involvement with the Science of Star Wars redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi and Urdu

Hi NadirAli. I've noticed that there's controversy on the Hindi and Urdu pages re standardization. I've set up a section on the talk page, so feel free to give your comments. Thanks! ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{spik ʌp!} 17:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks user:Basawala, I will add comments there tomorrow. One thing to point out is that the Hindi-Urdu controversy existed long before Wikipedia. This I believe is not a a disagreement, but a misunderstanding, which i will hopefully address tomorrow.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{spik ʌp!} 18:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Philosophy and religion in Star Trek for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Philosophy and religion in Star Trek is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophy and religion in Star Trek until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Partition of India. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
When an edit is reverted asking you to seek consensus, edit-warring is aggressive editing. You know better than that. Kautilya3 (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have not yet stopped edit warring. You know quite well how to initiate a discussion on the talk page. Putting discussions into edit summaries of reverts is not the way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA sanctions alert

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 that 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.

Kautilya3 (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Without My Daughter

Please see this move request. It will probably be done soon. Your DAB page is 'malplaced' since the base name 'Not Without My Daughter' is available for use and it is the logical choice for a DAB.You don't have to do anything further, just wanted to explain what will probably happen. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Do Animals Have Rights?

The article Do Animals Have Rights? has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't appear to fit in with WP:GNG.

It itself may be used as a citation for another article, but I don't think there are enough third party sources for the book to be qualified as an article in it's own right.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AtlasDuane (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To editor AtlasDuane:, it appears the template you placed does not have a link to the discussion page. Please send it to me or add the appropriate discussion tag. I have also changed it to the appropriate title to avoid confusion and help dig out more sources.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a bug in Twinkle. Don't know what went wrong.AtlasDuane (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq's Islamization does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Kautilya3 (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kharotabad Incident, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tajik. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Comparison of Marvel and DC, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Avengers and Martin Goodman. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Star Wars Tech

The article Star Wars Tech has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Piotrus, I have changed the template on the top to a more appropriate one. I will add more citations later. Note that because this is a stub article it has few citations.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English variants

Hi, articles on South Asian topics are written using the Indian/Pakistani spelling of English, which normally follows the British rather than the American conventions. For the general guidelines, see MOS:ENGVAR. – Uanfala 01:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Uanfala , I use Canadian English spelling when I edit articles.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) NadirAli, not following the English variant of the article you are editing can be considered vandalism, I don't think you want to be doing that. - Mlpearc (open channel) 02:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What article is this about? I follow my computers spelling guides. I am ensuring to keep grammar and spelling correct.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You tell me, you said "I use Canadian English spelling when I edit articles" - Mlpearc (open channel) 03:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to be more specific than that?--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nvrmnd WP:CIR. - Mlpearc (open channel) 03:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I meant what specific article did I "vandalize"--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NadirAli, when you start an article of your own you're generally free to choose whatever spelling you prefer. Unless the topic has MOS:TIES to a particular English-speaking region, in which case the spelling current in this region is preferred. This is the reason articles about South Asia use the Indian/British spelling. If you're contributing content to an article, you should follow the spelling already used in that article per MOS:ARTCON. Changing the spelling of particular words in an article when this leads to inconsistencies within the article and discrepancy with the spelling associated with the topic, as you did here or here, although of course not vandalism, is nevertheless disruptive. – Uanfala 09:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did that in response to my computer underlining spelling errors.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of languages by number of native speakers

As User:LiliCharlie mentioned, and as explained in the lead and in a note on the talk page, there are many different methods for counting speakers of languages, and using different sources for different languages yields inconsistent results. The only way to obtain a consistently ranked list is to be base it on a single source that covers all languages. Though no source is ideal, the Nationalencyklopedin is the best such source found so far. Altering individual entries based on other sources will turn the list into an inconsistent mess. If you have sources that give different information, the appropriate approach is to add a footnote with that information. If you have an alternative source covering all languages, it might be added in a different section. In any case, you should not alter the list, which would misrepresent our description of Nationalencyklopedin,

I see you are also removing an existing explanatory note of this type, which is unjustified. Kanguole 22:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]