User talk:Crosji

Hello, Crosji, and

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

23:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Fatima Fertilizer Company 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/Fatima Fertilizer Company until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The community came to a consensus at the AfD that the subject was insufficiently notable for a standalone article, and collectively decided it would be a reasonable search term instead. Hence the redirect. Please do not keep restoring the article; this both goes against community consensus and could constitute

However, the article is now redirected to a page of another company. Fatima is a registered company that is traded on the Karachi Stock Exchange. So the redirection is wrong. I have read only one comment that the article should be forwarded. So why are you talking about a collective decision? --Crosji (talk) 04:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

deletion review, not to edit war with the closing administrator. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

On 12 September 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Jan Hecker, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,

TheChronium, this article has 19 sentences and 14 references. How many more you think are needed for such specific information? Everything written is more or less supported by a reference. I understand, you like to put articles back to draft status but here you could just indicate where references are needed, for others and me to deal with it. Thanks --Crosji (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, I've reverted your

Hi Lord Bolingbroke, it wasn't necessary to move it back - it's clearly mention to be bold about such obvious moves. However, I requested it, meanwhile it has been excepted and its all done with the entire history of the earlier wrong titled page. You can find it at Ahmed Dawood. Regards. --Crosji (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't move it back because you never moved the page to begin with; you improperly copied the contents of the page to another title and I reverted. The page has now been moved properly per your request at

WP:RM/TR as I suggested. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello Crosji. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Crosji. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Crosji|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Blablubbs To claim I have “an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic” is absurd. I am genuine interested in South Asia and study the region since over two decades. I focus more on Pakistan related articles because the quality isn't that great and many things are not covered. I was reading up a lot about late Ahmed Dawood and learned much about his life and legacy. Hence, I contributed to the already existing article about him. That’s why I started also to write much about everything related to him. The article about The Dawood Foundation was reviewed by User:John B123 and it took me a lot of time to follow his advice to fulfil all the demands not to be tagged advertisement. I don’t understand how it is possible to delete a neutral article about an inspiring organisation in such a rush without any discussion (at least I am not aware of it). First time I contributed to Wikipedia is over 15 years ago and I stopped it for quite a while because of exactly such people like you who destroy motivation and curiosity.--Crosji (talk) 08:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for responding. Do you have any other connection to Ahmed Dawood, the Dawood Foundation, or any other affiliated entity or individual? --Blablubbs (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Blablubbs, I have no other connection to Ahmed Dawood. I am randomly spotted his life story and think is was great discovering it from a hobby historian perspective. I guess just because he was prominent long ago and in this part of the world, no greater attention hasn't been paid to it. There are even NYT articles from early 1970s. Wikipedia is a good medium to capture and inform about it. I hope more will be digged out about him from other users. I reached out to the Foundation regarding pictures they have had uploaded on Flickr. That's it. But isn't it the freedom everyone has: Writing about what you want and might be relevant for others? --Crosji (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. JavaHurricane 06:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JavaHurricane -- I don’t understand your speedy deletion of the article about The Dawood Foundation. This is a NGO in Pakistan focusing on education. Will you delete now every piece about such NGOs in Pakistan? I am genuine interested in South Asia and continuously study the region and like to share about it. I think particular about Pakistan there are not enough related articles or many of great quality. The article was reviewed by User:John B123 and it took me a lot of time to follow his advice to fulfil all the demands not to be tagged advertisement and neutral. I don’t understand how it is possible to delete an informative and relevant article about an inspiring organisation in such a rush without any discussion (at least I am not aware of it). First time I contributed to Wikipedia is over 15 years ago and I stopped it for quite a while because of exactly such people like you who destroy motivation and curiosity. Kindly let me know how to retrieve "the deleted material for future reference or improvement". --Crosji (talk) 09:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 September 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jan Hecker, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jan Hecker influenced the foreign policy of Angela Merkel? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jan Hecker. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jan Hecker), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Dawood Foundation 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/The Dawood Foundation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 21:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pillechan, thank you for bring this to my attention. I have contributed to the discussion and hope you will add to it as well. --Crosji (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Slywriter were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject

Referencing for beginners and Citing sources

.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Any sources unconnected the company? Re-printed press releases do not confer notability

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Reon Energy and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Reon Energy, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Slywriter (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Crosji! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Slywriter (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double
  inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners
  , for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images.
  non-free content criteria
  in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. /wiae /tlk 16:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure @Wiae, I am following these practices and will pay more attention. However, I am glad the article still exists. Keep up the good work! Crosji (talk) Crosji (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great to hear, thanks! Happy to help if you have copyright questions. /wiae /tlk 10:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Crosji

Thank you for creating MagnifiScience Centre.

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

This edit was pretty irresponsible. It looks like you restored an earlier version of the article and made some minor changes to information about the Dawood family, but in the process you wiped out what looks like dozens of small changes introduced in good faith by other editors, and reintroduced a bare URL reference and at least one grammatical error. You also marked the edit as "minor" which is incorrect and could be construed as deliberately misleading. Please don't edit in this fashion. On heavily edited articles, it's almost never appropriate to restore versions that many edits deep in the version history. Thank you. Folly Mox (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abdul Samad Dawood 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/Abdul Samad Dawood until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

scope_creep^Talk 08:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Christine Dawood 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/Christine Dawood until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

scope_creep^Talk 08:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Crosji. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page The Dawood Foundation, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the
  reliable sources
  supporting your suggestions;
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Saqib, it appears this accusation keeps cropping up, despite having addressed it in 2021. I am far from editing with such intentions and am well-versed in the rules. I genuinely enjoy contributing, especially to articles pertaining to Pakistan and its context. So, no need to worry—I will concentrate on the other 40,000 articles related to Pakistan. ;-) Crosji (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not accusing you of anything nor am I suggesting that COI is forbidden. I simply wanted to bring up the importance of transparency. If there is any potential for COI, it's better to disclose it to avoid potential issues in the future. Happy editing! Keep me informed if you encounter any BLP that you believe do not meet WP:N —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, certainly. I genuinely appreciate your recommendation. I will definitely keep you informed about any questionable cases. Crosji (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Crosji: Just curious, why are you adding unsourced DoB to a contentious topic like a BLP? —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch @Saqib. Forgot to add the reference. Will do it right away. Crosji (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't anticipate you adding such a dubious non-RS for something as critical as the DoB. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I noticed you changed the DoB after I flagged it. Why are you slipping in WP:OR? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib, upon scrutinising the birth date more closely, I came to the realisation that the sources, particularly the timeline, cannot be accurate. Hence, I opted for the most credible source, a fashion magazine, which aligns with the profession of the fashion designer in question. Using the birth date provided in the magazine as a reference seems logical, don't you think? Crosji (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was clearly

WP:SELFPUBLISH source. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I'll steer clear of the article; it's not my area anyway. I wasn't aware it was so controversial. Crosji (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]