Contents

User talk:Pixarh

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 Wikipedia 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) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pixarh. I just wanted to let you know that I have declined your speedy deletion nomination of Zara Peerzada because I didn't think it met the G11 criteria as unambiguous advertising. If you still think it should be deleted then feel free to take it to WP:AFD. Sarah-Jane (talk) 10:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why it qualifies for G11 is the unreliability of sources i.e. facebook.com and whisperinggirls.com. Pixarh (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G11 is for "pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." It has nothing to do with reliability or sources. Sarah-Jane (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True and not having reliable sources clearly advocates for why the content is promotional. Pixarh (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chiming in, since I've seen several mistaken A7 tags from this user as well: nor does unreliability (or even total lack) of sources have anything to do with A7. If that is your problem with the article, you must use PROD or AfD. A2soup (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mistake. Generally the editors who create article defend their article when experienced editors tag their article for deletion. There are cases where articles meet more than one speedy deletion criteria. For instance, this particular article met both G11 and A7. It is promotional and there is no credible claim of significance. Moreover, there are no reliable sources. AfD has already been done. The article fails WP:BASIC to start with. Pixarh (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the flowers!^^ I'm glad that you enjoyed the article. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shaikh Syed Abdul Razzaq Jilani is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. kashmiri ^TALK 18:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Thanks to all the well-read editors who participated in the discussion and stood up for the article. Pixarh (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. Eid-e-Milad-un-Nabi (SAW) Mubarak to you. You may contribute to my work on the page Muhammad (SAL): The Messenger of God.
Arjann (talk) 04:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Arjann: Thank you so much Arjann and greetings to you too. Shall look into the article soon. Pixarh (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Admin. Thanks for prompt info. Article and its citation has updated. Pl. Review and guide further.

Moreover I've tried 3 times to create an article on MPCStar player. It kept on deletion with objection of Promotion. Kindly Guide in this regard.

Adil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjadil (talk • contribs) 08:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed your article again but it is now proposed for deletion due to lack of notability. You must provide references especially third-party to ensure it is a notable person. As for the other article, it must be up for promotion due to its writing style or cohesion. Never write articles with a conflict of interest. Be neutral in presenting views of both sides. Do you have a draft somewhere?Pixarh (talk) 07:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pixarh,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pixarh! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 3 months.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]