This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Dear Justice007, thank you for the kindness that you showed to me recently. I really appreciate your efforts to stand up for me and ensuring that the community realizes that my intention is to make Wikipedia a better place. It means a lot to me. I hope to see kind spirited editors like yourself editing on Wikipedia. Your friend, AnupamTalk18:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Mr. Justice, Rather than giving the funny names to article section of Muhammad Iqbal you, kindly do some constructive work to develop the article. If you keep on reverting my constructive edits, You will leave no option for me rather than take your case to Wikipedia:RFCorWP:DRN, where you will be stopped from editing on particular or WP articles until you develop your skills, and the entire article of Muhammad Iqbal will be tagged with multiple remarks if the case reaches at Wikipedia:RFCorWP:DRN, and before reaching Wikipedia:RFCorWP:DRN, I supposed to warn you for the consequences of it, rest is upto you. Best wishes. --Omer123hussain (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
, from the article Muhammad Iqbal, with the edit summary of Copy edit, and main article mentioning as reference for further study is itself stub article unsourced ,not clear notability,and just newly created by Omer123hussain Please discuss on talk page for this [1] and next time you do any edit first discuss on talk page to avoid edit warring. :))--Omer123hussain (talk) 09:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Do not apply blogs as a Source.
In your recent edits at Tarana-e-Milli, you had applied a blog as an source here, which will put the article in more trouble. Blogs cannot be applied as an source, (except in very rare exceptional cases). Please stop this !!!, Please read and understand WP:MOS before you make any edit. :) Cheers.--Omer123hussain (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarana-e-Milli. Please comment on the content and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
i have cited or ref the mphil thesis of Abbas, Mohisn (Urdu adab kay faroog may Khushab ka hissa)and it is published from Allama Iqbal Open University. is it not a worthy reference to any content?? kindly plz tell me how can i cite this so that it is acceptable ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qasimyad (talk • contribs) 12:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a tonne , and I would be happy to learn from you.
Woh to dost hain nahin jo haste meri gaflat pe hain, Zindadilon se dosti , nacheez ka bhi shauq hai
Realnews7 (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up this article. Just wanted to remind you that the formatting should be italics for film titles and quotes "" for song titles. Please don't change that. BollyJeff|talk13:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Everything will be OK, I am still busy to update ,cleanup and layout.If anything goes wrong please correct it or let me know.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. When you recently edited Nazia Iqbal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sharjah (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
Please will you explain why you have reverted my edits to this article. If you fail to do so and revert my next edit I will report you to administration. 81.106.127.14 (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Because you added the content without providing reliable sources, and removal of anything needs sources too,and all changes should be first discussed on the talk page of the article, not on my talk page. Thanks. Justice007 (talk) 09:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, The Oxford English Dictionary is the most authoritative dictionary of the English language. There simply is not a more reliable source in existence. Secondly, your claim that any change to an article must be discussed on the article's talk page is also untrue. This would be an extremely laborious protocol would it be wikipedia policy. Fortunately no such policy exists. 81.106.127.14 (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Sandra Seaton Revision
Dear Justice007,
I see that you commented on the need for revisions to the article about Sandra Seaton. I just noticed that your recommendation to revise the article by adding more documentation and references has been followed through on. There are now more references and footnotes. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavender21 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
It's a great encouragement from an experienced editor's appreciation of my work.I am very pleased.Thank you very much.Justice007 (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. You've done quite some work around keeping the poor edits out and further improving the articles.. this was long due. Cheers. :] --lTopGunl (talk)17:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Comma in Pakistan
Hi Justice007. Actually, TopGun was right to revert it. Commas are only correct where there is one of quite a small number of specific reasons for them. If you're interested, this page gives a very clear, accurate introduction. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 10:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Lymari Nadal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ponce (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
Hey, you are involving in edit warring, by reverting poets name here, Kindly clear your misunderstanding that this is a list of poets, but not the list of poets who have article on WP. Please self revert your edit, rather than involving in edit warring. lastly do maintain the adequate and mannerism in your edit summary. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I think you need rest, on wikipedia, everthing should be according to wiki rules, and stop posting "Edit warring",that is not, you cannot add the red links, those do not have the notability.Justice007 (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Omer you are mistaken. The talk page clearly prohibits red links, as well as the hidden comments in the list--which you had to have seen. Omer: if you want to add red links you must gain consensus on talk first. Justice: just because someone is ignoring consensus and you know they're ignoring consensus and I know they're ignoring consensus is not a justification for edit warring. Put a warning on their talk, post a message on WPIndia, or go to ANI to report disruptive editing. I'm not watching that article--but feel free to drop a note if there's any more trouble. – Lionel(talk)02:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
(Edit conflict):* This is not a first time, that kind of "Edit warring", I am receiving from him every time, which I am ignoring of his lack of the wiki-knowledge. Thank you for your notice of that disruptive behaviour.Justice007 (talk) 09:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
@Justice stop hounding on editors, and I don't think but I believe that you need a complete rest forever :)
@Justice If it is redlink, remove the link, do not revert the work, And one more advice to you, do some research before blindly reverting any edit.
@ Lionelt, you are mistaken, Is it better to revert or to develop the contents? My intention was not to make it a redlink but to correct and restore that poet with reliable sources 1, 2, and before I could work it out, The reverting editor (Justice) jumped in between like an illiterate and without discussing or trying to know my cause, started edit warring, before I could complete the work.
Are you still confused?, I reverted only red link, this one. And I received directly "Edit warring" notice from you while first you undid my legitimate edit, that I reverted.Justice007 (talk) 09:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
You reverted simple text, and You are arguing that you reverted REDLINK, (see your brilliant work once again, this one what you placed above), Really it proofs what you are ??? :)
Well if you want details see below :),
:: I ( Omer123hussain ) made a edit at 22:57, 13 July 2012.
:: and you ( Justice007) reverted that edit at 22:59, 13 July 2012.
:: Before I could apply reliable source, with in difference of 2 minutes of my edit you reverted it, is it not edit warring???
Please stop playing on WP, I am really fed up with your non-scene, false blaming and edit warring. and as I advices you above, Please please please do some research before blindly reverting any edit. It is not you but me who is ignoring your edit warring. But this is last time, next time If you blame it will be reported further.
You are realy confused, before reverting I wikified the name, that was red, and it is the name of author or poet but not text, red links or black links have not notability. I am very cool person, I am here to help everyone and improving and expanding the articles. Please think twice before writing or speaking your views.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
No one bothers if you are cool or what ever, just discuss according to WP policy, and please as I told you make it your last excuse. And if you do not understand any thing please feel free to discuss. Regards :) --Omer123hussain (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Justice, you may want to defend yourself here on an SPI report initiated by Omerhussain123. Just bringing it to your attention since he did not notify you. Mar4d (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
If I can suggest something Justice, don't even bother commenting there unless there is something really egregious. I don't think this will go anywhere, so don't even get upset. NoleloverTalk·Contribs20:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Awards
Salaam Justice007, I noticed that you added your awards to your talk page. I added some additional ones from your archives! I hope this helps! With regards, AnupamTalk01:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Anupam, Thanks doing that,my mentor Nolelover did for me, as I am not familiar of many things, I ask mostly other experienced editors to help. Justice007 (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Dunes Review
Justice, could you check out my other article, Dunes ReviewUser:Guillaume2303 deleted the whole thing from a starter class down to nothing and then put it up for deletion. Dunes Review is the first and only literary magazine in Michigan NOT controlled by a government educational institution. --David Holmer (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Justice, just read your comment about staying away... I'm sure you have the articles best interest at heart. I will stay away. If I made things worse, please be bold and edit it out. --David Holmer (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Article is notable in my view according to reliable sources.Thanks for staying away, it's better because creator of the subject should not much involve in the discussion, let's do other editors.Justice007 (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Justice007, it really is very inappropriate to change another user's comments in an AfD discussion. I see from the discussion above that you did this with David's agreement, but people at the AfD will only see that you changed his comments and that doesn't look good. In future, it's better if David would do these things himself. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Guillaume, I just wasn't sure the policy about removing my inappropriate comments.
Justice, I removed the other comments after thinking about it. They were in response to JoannaSerah's comment about my person. --David Holmer (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Was curious as to how/how often the wiki-class on articles is checked/changed. I was thinking that this article was getting close to a C-class, but it is still a Stub? --David Holmer (talk) 07:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Justice, the major edit changes were made for the assessment from Stub class to Class-C. Please don't undo... at least discuss before changing it back, it's scheduled for assessment. Thanks. --David Holmer (talk) 10:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
It is NOT redundant... the info is different. It is a summary look at Walt Whitman PLEASE!--David Holmer (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Justice, Why are you NOT communicating with me? Why don't you look at the article I suggested? Why don't you want this article to improve? Please, TALK TO ME !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --David Holmer (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
YOU DONT OWN IT EITHER... Gillaume was assessing it for C-class until you started undoing all the work of improvement!--David Holmer (talk) 10:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
You are suppose to IMPROVE the article NOT maintain it at STUB-CLASS !!!--David Holmer (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
* Adding multiple sections with redundant content do not make it klass-C, I do not think Gillaume will do that. I do not own it too, but you created the article, leave it to others if you cannot expand and improve it properly.Justice007 (talk) 10:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I am NOT going to argue with you, I will ask Guillaume to step in and compare both edits, and will abide by his decision--David Holmer (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm done with Wikipedia. Spangle has ruined Rebecca Lard... sounds like sh!t because he can't speak English and shouldn't be working on an English site. I am tired of having to argue and explain proper English to people who are too lazy to put forth the effort to listen or learn how to speak it properly. Congrats on the saving of Dunes Review. I just wanted to stop by and thank you for being the sole editor that I truly enjoyed meeting on here. Thanks again for your efforts! --David Holmer (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Re:Barnstar
Dear User:Justice007, thank you for your kind barnstar. I'm glad to know that I'm making a difference here and appreciate the fact that editors like yourself notice my work! I hope you have a nice day! With regards, AnupamTalk06:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's August Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions. If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!
Note: The drive starts August 1, and you can sign up anytime!
I have not been through cited sources, I am just copy editing and making layout.What you reverted that passage was not added by me I just reverted someone els edit, and you seem to agree with my concerns. I will look at the references that are not cited to any passage (though not mentioned by you.) Justice007 (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
For the record this is the addition of original research which one can see is clearly added by you into the article Muhammad Ali Jinnah . This is Clear addition of Original research, Also you should read the source prior to such controversial changes as they tantamount to source misrepresentation which is a serious offence.--DBigXray13:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Without checking, you did not believe me, look at this, I came here first time to edit the article. I just reverted because editor himself was not sure about the meaning.Justice007 (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
If you are reverting/undoing an edit, you should say so in your edit summary , the edit summary here was misleading.--DBigXray13:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I have nearly 2000 pages to my watch list, especially Pakistan related articles, is it objectionable?. I undid your reverting because of illegitimate revertion, while there is reliable source available.I hope this helps. Justice007 (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes I never edited that, but well I watch every time all edits all of editors who contribute the Pakistan and India related articles, where I think, is appropriate to contribute, I do without any hesitation, assuming of course good faith.Justice007 (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
More further, I patrol all new pages and recent edits or changes too.Where I find illegitimacy, I go there with no problems, only for fairness.Justice007 (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Bull, it is not possible to watch all edits by all editors in this topic area, especially as you have never been to this article before under this account. Given there has been a fair few edit wars on it since you joined Wikipedia it strikes me as strange you should suddenly turn up now. Please disclose any account you used previously with which you edited this article. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Further, to say you saw this on RC rings hollow. Your contributions history shows no evidence of an active RC patrol, nor could you have seen that edit fully three quarters of an hour after I made it on RC, it would have dropped off the list. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Don't be suspisious, I patrol all pages thoroughly that I have on my watch list,or I glance at. It is not necessary to go everywhere,but you must know every editor has right to be bold to edit everywhere, there are no any restrictions, regulations and limitations about, whether to do or not. If you have any concerns relating that, please go to file at proper notice board rather than wasting my time that I can use to improve and expand other articles.I have replied you in very clear way, if you don't believe me that is your matter not mine. I hope this is enough to help you. Thanks. Justice007 (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for not even remotely responding to my questions. All you have managed with your prevarication is to ensure that you are in fact a sock or a rather unfortunate meatpuppet. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Justice should this persist, take it up to ANI. You might not be aware, but calling established editors a sock is a personal attack and is blockable, esp for some one with the history like DS. You don't have to explain anything to another editor on how you get to another articles. Stalking is only brought into account when the two editors have a history of disputes or when you have a pattern of appearing at new articles one editor edits. --lTopGunl (talk)17:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks TopGun, you are doing best contributions to wikipedia, especially Pakistan and India related articles, my watch list shows all activities of users/editors, who are added to my list. I have replied on the talk page of Anti-Pakistan sentiment. Justice007 (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi
Hi User, you have reverted my work (rather than discussing it on the talk page) with some abusive and humiliating sort of edit summary.
Rather than involving in edit warring, I ask you to justify your revert.
What made you to revert the work rather than discussing it?
Omer, I found nothing in WP:MOS to substantiate your position. However WP:IC says "Wikipedia does not have a '"one inline citation per sentence" or "one citation per paragraph"' rule." That said, it is always best to discuss issues on the talk page. And Justice, it's always better to talk about the edit, not the editor. Hope this helps! – Lionel(talk)01:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
@Lionelt; I clearly mention c/e (copy editing), any way what is the logic of repeating same single source 3 times in the two line sentence? and abusing/discriminating the editors through edit summaries, without discussing or bothering to discuss. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Mrt3366(Talk?)09:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Not guilty!
The Purple Barnstar
Awarded for bravely asserting your innocence and mounting a powerful defense against the charges brought against you. – Lionel(talk)01:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I've been working on a number of India related articles, and have recently updated and improved the article on P.K. Kaul. Would appreciate it if you could take a look and leave your comments on the talk page on how it may be further improved. Any edits and modifications/improvements to the article would be most welcome. I am still looking for a free image to post on Pratap Kishen Kauls wiki page. Any help in this regard would also be welcome. Thanks. -Ambar (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Muhammad Iqbal Page
Dear Justice 007,
Not sure why you revert my edit.
Iqbal is known as the 'Poet of the East' only among the Urdu-Hindi speakers. Arabs, Farsi-speakers, Chinese, and other Eastern linguistic groups have no clue Iqbal is being hailed as the 'Poet of the East' by the Urdu speakers.
Please provide references showing other linguistic groups calling Muhammad Iqbal the 'Poet of the East', if you really have such a belief.
warm regards,
Cemendtaur — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cemendtaur (talk • contribs) 14:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Source 9 states only Poet of East, we have to follow that, not personal view point or description in this regard that you are doing,I have also replied you on the talk page of Muhammad Iqbal. May I ask you why you are especially interested to make him limited??.Justice007 (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Your given sources support the content, but he is not going to understand, why?, that I don't know. Well I consider his act and repeated question as a pretended ignorance. I am going to talk page of Iqbal to comment there too. Justice007 (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Malik Ram's surname is Baveja and not Ram; Ram is part of his first name; he is to be addressed as Malik Ram. Kindly restore to Malik Ram from Ram. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soni Ruchi (talk • contribs) 03:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I know, and personally I have no problem what should be the name, our subject of area uses the names differently, but I change the name according to wiki rule WP:surname, about same problem I had once with an editor clashing arguments, because I had same idea that you have now. I am going to ask him for more clarity of the policy, may be we find some solution in this regard.Justice007 (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Malik Ram was always known as Malik Ram in the literary world, not Malik and not Ram. A lot of people in India have Ram as part of their given first name e.g. |Jagjivan Ram (called Jagjivan Ran and not Ram). In fact, even Malik Ram's mother always called him Malik Ram, according to a biography I have read and never Malik or Ram. Malik Ram is listed under M in official literary lists and library catalogues. No one has heard of him as Malik, the Urdu scholar or Ram, the Urdu writer. He is always called Malik Ram. I agree with Soni Ruchi.
In this interview he gave, the interviewers call him Malik Ram and, having read the WP guidelines regarding usage of names, Malik Ram appears to be appropriate.
Thanks for your efforts. I have had a look and don't agree. The WP guidelines say:
"People who are best known by a pseudonym should be subsequently referred to by their pseudonymous surnames, unless they do not include a recognizable surname in the pseudonym (i.e. Madonna, Snoop Dogg, The Edge), in which case the whole pseudonym is used."
Malik Ram is actually one name. Ram, as Soni Ruchi, who created the article, and I have pointed out, is not his surname. Malik Ram should be regarded as one pseudonymous name in this case, according to the guidelines. I consider the remark about the number of edits one has made facetious. Quality not quantity is what matters when editing. I don't think you yourself have to change names elsewhere if you change this!--Zananiri (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I realy do not know any thing other than that, if you think Malik Ram is one name then go ahead and revert that, I will not object, but do not know about other editors what they think. Cheers.Justice007 (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Will do so some time next week, as I am away for a few days. Perhaps Soni Ruchi can do it, if she sees this. Also, do we still need the tag you added yesterday, as all the reflinks have been edited and refined since you posted it?--Zananiri (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Please make sure you won't make comments like this ever again.You are supposed to be civil and calm + Make sure you use better language while defending your claim.Remember that you were even dragged to SPI for having similar language as that of some IPs. Cheers TheStrikeΣagle07:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for helping me out with Melis's page. I don't know how to add the citation for her paper. It was at HIBIT conference Izmır/Turkey 2011 and her publication's name was IDENTIFICATION OF TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR BINDING SITES IN PROMOTER DATABASES if you can add it that would be great. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurgu Karga (talk • contribs) 08:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
Dear user:Justice007, I for one find it very helpful, in an article that has a template at the top indicating a lack of reliable sources, to see where other editors have recommended the references should be added. I'm sure this helps others aside from me. I often then try to find references to replace the templates. Of course, I also do so regardless of existing templates, but I do find it helpful if others have marked the path (so to speak). Anyway, these are just my thoughts. I hope you don't mind me adding them here. Keep up the great work. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The edit I made to the above article corrected grammar errors, not factual errors. You have just replaced the errors. Thank you. Denisarona (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I have changed that in proper grammar, "showbiz" is very common to use, it is not necessary to write that informal.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
Dear User:Justice007, I hope you are well. I feel powerless to prevent the vandalism occuring on the Yusuf Estes page. An editor -- User:Muslim Online -- repeatedly posts unreferenced and clearly partisan POV material that violates WP:BLP guidelines. I could continue to revert the edits to remove this content in accordance with the ruling that "contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion", but I am afraid that my own actions might be misconstrued as edit warring and that I could be accused of violating Wikipedia's three-revert rules.
Please see if you can help, or at least give me some useful advice.
Well, SamuelTheGhost, as I am belonging to that part of the world, and I am also much familair to the Urdu, Arabic and Persian languages, and its grammar. "Rahman" is an Arabic word, it pronounces 'Rahman' but not 'Rehman'. Though mostly in India and Pakistan, it is commonly wrong pronouced, and translated into incorrect spelling. Academics do not make the mistake but having poor knowledge writers do that. When I come across that kind of translated wrong spelling, I make that correct, that's all, and for that there is no need of RS. Please take a look at these correct spelling articles of the same name: Ahfaz-ur-Rahman,Hamoodur Rahman, Tariq Rahman, Rahman Syed, Bushra Rahman, Rahman Baba. If you are native speaker of English, then I can imagine, and that makes me no surprise, but if you are from there, then I will suggest you please improve your knowledge of languages. I hope this helps. Cheers.Justice007 (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
No I'm afraid it does not help. Editors in wikipedia are self-selected and anonymous except where they choose to identiy themselves. I have not published my qualifications, my native language, or any other languages I know. If I did publish them, other editors would still have no way of knowing whether I had told the truth about them. The only evidence acceptable under wikipedia policy is WP:RS, not personal knowedge. These considerations apply equally to me and to you. WP:RS is the only evidence we can take any notice of.
Of course I am aware that the scholarly transliteration of Arabic: الرحمن is ar-Rahman or, more carefully, ar-Raḥman, but wikipedia policy for names is to use the transliteration found in the sources, whether or not they are "correct". In the case of Shafiq-ur-Rehman, English-language sources are using the form ur-Rehman, and apparently no other, so wikipedia policy is quite clear that that is the form we should be using. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I do not agree with you, please indicate, that where RS allow the incorrect spelling, there is also a rule WP:common sense, I do not know that we should use or not, before I go futher to discuss this issue with you, first you provide the reliable sources to support your concerns, while the article's subject has no any reliable sources to even pass the notability, I do not see and find any one there. If you are so strict and fair to the policies, you must nominate the article for deletion because it falls under the criteria for proposed deletion.Justice007 (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, on a quick search I found the following three, where the first at least must count as WP:RS
You even didn't bother to read the common sense, it is waste of time to search the skin of the hair. I have used my best judgment to correct the wrong translated spelling of the name, as I said you it is very common blunder in India and Pakistan, even in the media. There are many articles that need to be corrected , as I have done, Ahmed to correct Ahmad, for both wrong and correct spelling, there are reliable sources, on this point, we have to use common sense and our best judgment. What you have provided the sources, only one is reliable, and that can be use for the notability of the subject to save from deletion, other two are blogs, that are not reliable sources, I have also searched, but there are not much reliable sources, it is a great pity, that that notable and great humorist has no reliable sources?. As you provided, here are from me too, with correct spelling this and that. Again the main purpose is to the correct and best judgment that I have done.Hope this helps. Justice007 (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harry Gill, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bisley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
Hi, good patrolling, his edits are not based on good faith, he has the history of spoiling the article, nevertheless, I will care next and act as you said. Thanks for care. Justice007 (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarana-e-Milli. Please comment on the content and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Done self reverted and restored your edits, cheers--DBigXray 14:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
