Talk:Balouch Tehsil

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Balouch Tehsil article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Pakistan Low‑importance

	Pakistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

India: Jammu and Kashmir / Geography Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian geography workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article was last assessed in September 2021.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Balouch, Azad Kashmir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited content, unattributed editorial

For the last several weeks, a contributor (or contributors?) have continued to add the same uncited content and unattributed editorial. Repeatedly. In a way that is problematic relative to WP:3RR, WP:VER, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and several other policies. While advisories (on how this content and editing practice is contrary to the applicable policies) have been shared on the relevant user talkpages (and via edit summaries, etc), I am opening this thread to ensure that nothing is lost. In short:

Adding content which is not cited or verifiable is contrary to WP:VER. For example, a claim that the "town is similar to the city Denver, in Colorado, US" needs a reference.
Adding uncited content, and then immediately tagging it as such, is not useful. For example, adding a claim that "3G and 4G internet service is available in Balouch and surrounding areas" with a tag that this addition is uncited ("[citation needed]") is not useful. Adding content, and then expecting someone else to find a reference is not appropriate. The responsibility for providing a reference lies with the editor who adds it.
Adding a long list of person names, without any explanation or clarification, is beyond useless. What are other editors supposed to do? Lookup the phone book and CALL the FIFTY people listed in the "references"? And ask them verbally to validate the content? This is NOT how Wikipedia references work. Sources must be clear, reliable and verifiable. A "list of 50 random names" does not meet this expectation.
Adding promotional and guidebook style content (like stating that the "best way to visit is to approach an Uber driver and move along this journey of awe and adventure") is not in keeping with WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK and WP:NOTHOWTO.
Adding unattributed opinion and unqualified editorial (about the area having the "best hasheesh in the world" or "beautiful things happening on a daily basis") is entirely out of whack with the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV guidelines.
Adding content without explanation (or with edit summaries which do not provide an adequate explanation and which otherwise refer to random stuff about "Roger Rabbit" or "not creating the drama") is also not consistent with the guidelines on using meaningful edit summaries.

Editor(s) seeking to add this type of content would ideally engage here (or with the messages already left elsewhere). Continually adding content in this way is disruptive. And not useful to the project. Thanks. Escalation and WP:PP next. Guliolopez (talk) 11:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any personal info, next year.