Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LjL (talk | contribs) at 21:20, 21 April 2016 (→3rr: about citations in lead). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The most important aspect of delivering justice is to deliver the offenders to the justices, so they may defend themselves.

Sheriff ☎ 911

Welcome to Corrections Department

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.

Summons

Your liberal accusations of vandalism on Yazidis

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Chatter on Hajj talkpage

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)

@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)

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)

Talkback

Ayub407 15:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

rollback

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Thank you, I appreciate it. Sheriff (report) 19:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

edit reverted

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)

@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)

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.

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Hi ! I want to be your friend. Ciphers00 (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@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)

Muhammad Malik

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)

@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)

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)

A cupcake for you!

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)

Thank you, i appreciate the gesture. Sheriff (report) 19:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

British Raj

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Note

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.

Template:Z33 --NeilN 11:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

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

@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)

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 Misplaced Pages rules we don't abuse vandal users too. --Human3015  17:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

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.

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  17:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@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)

There's no special editing restrictions beyond standard discretionary sanctions. Reading Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Guidance_for_editors might help. --NeilN 17:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages then it is important to mention their nationality. --Human3015  17:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

Barnstar?

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 17:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

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)

Hi, your edit summary 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 17:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

That barnstar is for new editors as it is named The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar. Sheriff (report) 17:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

A 9 months old account with 1600+ edits and you call them a "new editor"? kashmiri 19:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

That was my judgement when I awarded him that barnstar. Misplaced Pages 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)

Pending changes reviewer

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:

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

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

Mohammad Ashraf Ghani

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)

@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)

Bangladesh

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)

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)

NLIST 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 Misplaced Pages 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 15:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

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)

"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 16:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages. kashmiri 16:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

Edit warring

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

Revert 1, revert 2, revert 3. From Misplaced Pages: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)

@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)

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)

Prophet ﷺ

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)

Image copyright

Your addition to Firdous Jamal has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Misplaced Pages without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Misplaced Pages. For legal reasons, Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. --Jezebel's Ponyo 21:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 21:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

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)

Per Misplaced Pages: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 23:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

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

The copyright holder needs to confirm the release.--Jezebel's Ponyo 00:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

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)

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 21:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@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 Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content? As a side note, your ping didn't work as you didn't sign your post.--Jezebel's Ponyo 17:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Edits on Islam

I noticed that you reverted one of my edits to Islam. Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages style guidelines pertaining to grammar. Lucas "nicatronTg" Nicodemus (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Karachi Food & Cuisine:

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)

@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)

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)

@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 Misplaced Pages. Sheriff | report | 01:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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 Misplaced Pages as well and that website is not some well known or reputable site anyway. Sheriff | report | 04:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hussain Haqqani

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)

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)

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

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 Misplaced Pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VisionHawk (talk • contribs) 16:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

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

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

Advices

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)

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 Misplaced Pages towards good contributers vs. people who just come to vandalize. Sheriff | report | 16:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

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 09:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@SQL: What I think the original poster was referring was that some admins or other editors on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Al-Shams (East Pakistan) (I did not see that before), base your argument on policies of Misplaced Pages instead of what people's personal preferences are. Almost, every Misplaced Pages editor who lives in a democratic country supports one or another political party and almost every editor on Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

@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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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 Misplaced Pages doesn't end up getting hijacked by your lot.--Akbar the Great (talk) 02:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

The article was sourced and met general notability guidelines. You tried to delete the Misplaced Pages 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)

@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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages and follow them. Getting upset about normal processes of Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

@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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

@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 Misplaced Pages: WikiProject Bangladesh articles. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Malik and Zehri

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)

@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)

No no no you are right. I jumped the gun. Curro2 (talk) 05:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

MIT

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)

Ditto for OUP. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Ping. Please respond in the next week if you are still interested in receiving access. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@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)

Submitted for OUP as well! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Liaquat Ali Khan

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

@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)

@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)

Pakistan

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)

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)

Happy New Year, SheriffIsInTown!

SheriffIsInTown,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. Kautilya3 (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

Hussain Haqqani

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)

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)

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

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)

• Sheriff, I hope you don't mind if I drop this here. GreenBeret65, first of all see ]; 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 Misplaced Pages'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)

JF-17

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)

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)

@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)

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)

Restoration of personal attack

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)

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. Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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)

@Akbar the Great: May almighty help you and give you peace! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

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)

You will find me equally courageous enough to verify your distortions as well. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 05:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@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)

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!

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:

		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)

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.

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.

*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 Misplaced Pages 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. 

		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)

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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.

Your recent editing history at Mukti Bahini 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.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mukti Bahini. 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.