Jump to content

Talk:Imran Farooq

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Changes to Intro/Education/Personal Life

[edit]

Made some changes to these sections (added the Education section) in order to make the page more reader-friendly. No major edits.Mk30662n (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Involvement with MQM

[edit]

This section had very little information, so I added more info with valid references of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mk30662n (talk • contribs) 17:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes less is more, as in this case here. IMO your addition has been detrimental to the article. Its a bit like, someone loves chocolate chip ice cream and they write and fill up the article , all the other people just want a simple explanation without the fluff and so they don't read it, defeating the objective of adding the content.Off2riorob (talk) 17:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would make sense if any of it was "fluff"...the additions I made were simple facts about his involvement with MQM. Completely unbiased information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia--so the argument "less is more" does not fit in here. If people are out to learn about Dr. Imran Farooq, I doubt they want five lines about his life.--Mk30662n

Your additions are not noteworthy and this is not a place for promotion of an organization, the content you are adding would fit better somewhere else and adds nothing educational or informative at all, in fact, your additions make the article less readable and less encyclopedic. Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mk30662n, I guess that I agree with Off2riorob. Wikipedia is more or a reader-oriented website. You might want to create separate sections so that those who are not interested in those sections may just ignore it. Someone can then shuffle the categories in terms of importance/relevance. Just my two cents. M12390 (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

info box

[edit]

What's up with the info plate next? Is identifying one's religion now standard for say.. politicians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.185.244.84 (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes.

uncited addition

[edit]

A user keeps adding this without a supporting WP:RS can someone cite it and replace it, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 11:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He had a Muhajir background. Imran Farooq was a doctor and had graduated from the Dow Medical College, Karachi in 1985.

The first political organization of Muhajirs All Pakistan Muttahidda Students Organization, a forerunner of the MQM was launched to protect Muhajirs and Farooq was one of the founder so obviously he had a Muhajir background. Pervez Musharraf is a Muhajir but there is not source provided, I think such information is not covered by mainstream sources. --Saqib Qayyum (talk) 10:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We still need a source to add it to the article. Off2riorob (talk) 10:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I told you such information is not covered by mainstream sources so please stop removing categories. --Saqib Qayyum (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muhajir people are those who are predominantly native Urdu speaking Muslims of British India, migrated to Pakistan following independence in 1947. His father Farooq Ahmed was born in British India and migrated to Pakistan following independence in 1947 that's why Farooq had a Muhajir background. --Saqib Qayyum (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Provide a reliable source of what you are asserting. Better yet, try not to bring the great Punjabi pastime of digging up of linguistic backgrounds of anyone who comes your way. Please respect other people's right of self determination. Ever since my childhood I have been sick and tired of Punjabis asking me of where my father was from and where my grandfather was from and where my great-grandfather was from. Only to get a fresh verdict from yet another Punjabi, "Tou ay dasu tusi Muhajir o" or "Why don't you simply say that you are a Mohajir." Enough divisions already. M12390 (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say this to you again it is repetitive, go get yourself a WP:RS , also when you have the citation we can add that about his father without a citation we can not, also even when cited that puts his father is the cat but not this person, he was born and bred in Pakistan, this person was not an immigrant. Off2riorob (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source (and many) may not mention the word exactly but anyone who knows about the history of Pakistan/South Asia knows what a mohajjar is. WP:Ignore is reason enough for unccntroversial edits such as this that are fact
okay, found one: [1]Lihaas (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This source http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-murder-in-suburbia-that-sent-shockwaves-across-the-world-2082697.html DOES NOT mention the birth place of Farooq Ahmed, nor it asserts if Imran Farooq preferred to be called a Mohajir or if he preferred to be called a Sindhi or just a Pakistani. The leader of the MQM recently gave an interview to Mubashir Lucman and when Mubashir Lucman asked him point blank in his TV program interestingly called Point Blank: Why would a Punjabi, Pashtun or Balochi agree to be ruled by a Mohajir http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qZIKmeTuZY&feature=related (watch from 7:35), Mr. Hussain said, "please don't talk about linguistic divisions." Now, It is very well possible that Mr. Farooq identified himself as a Mohajir or a Bihari or a Bihari Mohajir. But that privilege goes to the man himself. Who am I or any other person to dictate what Mr. Farooq must be called. Worse yet, digging up of an obscure reference at markthetruth.com which cannot be accepted as unbiased source shows that Lihaas is promoting an agenda. Here is link to Wikipedia's guidelines on questionable sources that exactly fits marktheturth.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources M12390 (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care about history and claims, also ignore all rules does not apply to additions to a blp. I fail to understand why you have not added this citation? (looking at it again it doesn't appear to be a wiki reliable source)Please do not add he has a immigrant background without explaining what that is referring to . why?, when? who? and where? Off2riorob (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I doubt the insertion above is yours, and probably the same user. I will refrain from responding to thim since he continues to resort to ad hominem attacks)
As for your reply, Off2riorob, sorry i didnt reply earlier (but your message on my page you said the issue was settled). why would you say it is questionable a source? The source indicates its author and his background.
Farooq also founded the the All Mohajar Student group as sourced on the page, as well as the MQM which is again with others of similiar background.
Also you said, "ignore all rules does not apply to additions to a blp" This is not a blp. Which is why the edits happened and the page was on ITN.
Furthermore: [2] Surely this too isnt a POV source that doesnt check its sourcesLihaas (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom line is that you are a biased contributor Lihaas. Again, a Lahori just CANNOT be unbiased about Karachi. It is a known fact. Shame on you to take your petty rivalry to malign Pakistan on Wikipedia. M12390 (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insistence on the use of the Muhajir label

[edit]

Hi, this source is ok but is clearly not correct as " Dr. Imran was from Bihar and therefore was known as a Bihari Mohajar" - the comment is half correct, but Dr Imran was not from Bihar, he was born in Pakistan Karachi. .. so I wouldn't use it for that, the story is .. Imran Farooq's father was from bihar and moved during the partition and Imran was born in Karachi, Imran is therefore the son of a Bihari Mohajair ... but I don't see the father in there, I have seen in one of the cites about his fathers position in the political house, but not for the fact that the father was from Bihar, so that comment although a bit cited is still not clearly correctly cited by using that cite...can we find the comments about his father being from Bihar and moving during partition in a cite? Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

One can be born in place X but be from Y, John McCain was born in the Panama, and obama is from Il, wasnt born there, Bush is from TX but wasnt born there. (god know's there are many more, Eamon de Valera wasnt Irish as such) The term mohajir (as per the page) refers to "term used by and for those people of Pakistan who are predominantly native Urdu speaking Muslims of British India, migrated to Pakistan following the Partition of India in 1947. The term is sometimes used broadly to also include ..."
The guardian ref above says "between the rival Mohajar factions..." and "Dr. Imran was from Bihar and therefore was known as a Bihari Mohajar "(Lihaas (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
Hmm, "Bush is from TX but wasnt born there." I think that some people are giving examples to disprove the very argument they have been insisting on injecting in this article. Such is the silliness of the political thinking process in Pakistan, especially of those who are anti-MQM.
Bush was born in Connecticut but is known to be "from Texas." Who defined where he is from? Bush did. By making Texas his physical and political home.
Now, if some people from California insisted on forcing "Bush is from Connecticut" on Bush's Wikipedia page, that would indicate those Californians' ulterior motive. That is exactly what some participants here are doing and they are being challenged.M12390 (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who is anti-MQM? stick tot he facts and matter at hand, please. (though im only responding to this because its WP:Civil
[To Off2riorob], the term mohajir as it is now known (and sourced) refers not to migrants as such but the larger grouping, as is on that page. (Lihaas (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
  • - The tagging of this article as not neutral is pointless and completely incorrect. I am a wikipedia editor of total neutrality in this issue. I have been the only uninvolved contributor to this article. The article should be clear and not promo of either side and well cited and as this is the en wiki, written from a global perspective. Keep the NPOV template, for ever if you want, but do not spoil the neutrality and simple educational honest readability of the content. Off2riorob (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am another neutral editor who is wondering what exactly is the disputed material here? The atile seems pretty balanced to me. I am inclined to remove the tag unless someone can explain why it needs to be there. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a dispute and we were discussing the issue. The point of the tag is to draw editors to the conversation that is going in cycles.Lihaas (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are active both on the discussion page and, more important to me, on the article page I am inclined to go with "participation for the participators. However if the point of the "neutrality in question" tag is to draw editors in when in fact the article is neutral, well that seems like bait and switch to me. Carptrash (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is the article neutral if we're discussing said issue?Lihaas (talk) 03:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other removals

[edit]

[3][4][5] The three were cited as "promotion," however if one sees the WP:RS it is not promotion but relevant to the context that the 2 did have a close relationship (they are after all in the same party too). Furthermore, the 2nd 2 links are reactions to his death -- as per reaction lists on deaths or attacks anywhere on wiki[edia.Lihaas (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus cant wait for ever. its been over a week..Lihaas (talk) 04:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear as a broad daylight that some people are more interested in injecting their skewed agendas in article than contributing to its natural evolution. Also, anyone who is in hurry to help develop an encyclopedia entry has something up his sleeve. 69.121.234.152 (talk) 04:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to discuss the issues, which I did and waited over a week for responses? Or do you want to continue to act as a WP:Sockpuppet?Lihaas (talk) 09:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

disputed content

[edit]

The content is not in the cite and the subject is not an immigrant but was born in Pakistan. ' Farooq has a Muhajir background is not cited in this reference. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-murder-in-suburbia-that-sent-shockwaves-across-the-world-2082697.html also there is no citation that calls him a Muhajir and he was not an immigrant he was born in Pakistan , his father was a Muhajir and as yet I have not even seen that cited. Off2riorob (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above duly deals with this above, and you refused to participate in that discussion. If you want to change the content the onus is now on you to get consensus which you havent done. I've reverted your edit pending discussion.
Please see the first sentence of wikipedia own article on muhajir, which you will not is seperate from the arabic word which is NOT the same in Pakistan. (in the same vein, gay, lesbian, bastards, etc are not the same word they were derived from). Furthermore, familiarising yourself with issues of Pakistan and the region would help to, WP:Common sense.Lihaas (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is made abundantly through insane amount of repetition that some people just don't get it. Wikipedia is not about what some people wish what THE TRUTH must be. It is about referencing credible sources in an unbiased manner to provide encyclopedia value to those who use Wikipedia as one of the sources of information. M12390 (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well said M12390, Linass, Present it here with your sources or stop adding it. As I see it is uncited and it has never been presented as value cited content, go ahead make my day, show me the cites. The subject of this article was born in Pakistan and is a Pakistani person. Attempting to label him as an immigrant is beyond the pale.Off2riorob (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, no. you havent shown understanding of the content. Either we tag it or leave it as cited.
'BOTH editors with an udnerstanding of the subject do in fact state this. (see above)
Furthermore, before such uninformed edits that you havent even seen my arguement, you have gone and confirmed my assertion. your edits so no cohesion at all but go on a whim ready to attack.
And you have also WP:Censorship content over hereLihaas (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there is a gross misunderstanding of what 'immigrant' really means in the context of Muhajirs. Farooq is not an immigrant in the literal sense, but he is an immigrant in the cultural and ethnic sense. The term 'Muhajir' extends to all those Muslim refugees who migrated to Pakistan from present-day India upon its independence and their children, grandchildren, great grandchildren etc. Please stop calling him an immigrant and out of cultural ignorance, try to take in the contextual definition of Muhajir. It would be helpful for this article and this discussion. Mar4d (talk) 08:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its not supported in the citations, no one calls him a Muhajir. Show me the citations to assert he is commonly refered to as a Muhajir please. Also Linass seems to be adding content because he knows its true, present the citations here for the content you desire to include and we can include it.10:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk)
  • - Its this simple - show me the citations that support where the father was born and the citations that assert this person was commonly refereed to as a Muhajir and we can include those things. Also Linass, can you stop shouting in your edits and stop with the claims of censorship, and your claims of consensus , two users don't make a firewall consensus, just present your citations in a calm manner, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 10:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The contents do have a cite, the reference of him coming from bihar includes that. Didnt you see the ref before the removal? as mar4d also asserts (and as Muhajir is disambiguated on wikipedia for different contexts) the term is not the same as its arabic origin term as many people have repeatedly said, the onus is then on you to get counter-consensus. There are actually more than 2 users, and neither can consensus wait forever. See above, i posted my comment, there was no reply for a while, i cant sit and wait forever. And consensus is not a mere tally, its the arguement, which all users (you included) have made valid arguements.
Again, what is this "Mohajir Quami Movement" --> WP:Common sense = "Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution."
Not sure where im "shouting" but if thats how it was seen then my bad.
Okay, my bad, the source seems not to have been there but im sure i added at some point either to the main page or the talk page above. Anyhooe: [6][7][8] The latter which explicitly states: "First convener of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement’s Central Coordination Committee and former secretary general of the party, Farooq had been Altaf Hussain’s right-hand man for nearly three decades. A migrant from Bihar..."
Ill wait for your response before warring(Lihaas (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
This shows an interesting fixation by some. A person was born in Karachi by all well-known accounts. He is misrepresented as a "migrant from Bihar" by an obscure source. It is insisted by some that that quote is used by hooks or by crooks just to sneak in his POV. If that is not a self-serving POV then what is it? :) I just marvel how long this particular individual has been stuck on this issue. At the same time I salute his persistence. LOL! M12390 (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Readded with comment/support from other editor too.

Now Imran Farooq's Father is Dragged

[edit]

After staying for months to call Imran Farooq a "Muhajir" it is now his father who is being called a "Muhajir". That labeling is about a living person and must be handled properly.M12390 (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus Reached? Hardly

[edit]

The effort to introduce the word Muhajir in Imran Farooq's pages has been going on for months. Now it is claimed that a consensus has been reached. Hardly. The reference used is an obscure source that does not even substantiate what one of the authors has been trying to introduce in this page. The consensus is figment of one author's imagination. Interesting thing is that this particular author has been threatening about banning me for as long a time. M12390 (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is yet another NPA and not worth commenting on unless content is discussed. The source is not considered or blocked as unreliable, and furhtermore, every other editor above has come to agreement on this.Lihaas (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

attack cite

[edit]

http://pakistanthinktank.org/component/k2/item/749-imran-farooq-was-a-ruthless-operator

This is an attack cite against this person with some extreme allegations against the person and it should not be used to source anything in his article. Off2riorob (talk) 11:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

firstly, to undo a consensus requires another consensus not a whim to revert what was agreed to (by you included)
there is nothign to suggest factual details are made up even it does express opinion. (which is what makes RS) " A migrant from Bihar, Farooq held a medical degree from Karachi’s Sindh Medical College and began his political career as a founding member of the All Pakistan Mohajir Students Organisation in April 1979, which was converted into the MQM in 1984" facts taht sourced all over. At any rate, going back to the above WP:Common sense for someone who founded the "All Pakistan Mohajir Students Organisation." And there also 3 sources pointed outLihaas (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
wikipedia page for a muhajjir says "predominantly native Urdu speaking Muslims" not that they were immigrants directly as the arabic interpertation would suggest. the context of the term Muhajir (see linl) varies from place to place.(Lihaas (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
The Pakistan Think Tank lacks any indicia of being an RS, from what I can see both on the site and in a search for RS coverage of it.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
okay then, ive left the dubious tag finmding/pending another cite. if its not forthcoming then wed take it ofcurse.(Lihaas (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
No not ok , its not wikipedia reliable so its gone, please do not replace it again. Here is a thread at WP:RSN explaining the reasons, feel free to comment there with your reasons to support the cites reliability. Off2riorob (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
um the tag exists for a reason to elicit addition of other sources for readers/editors.
You do not WP:OWN the article to decide that one day you agree to the addition and a few days later decide its not warranted and thus must go. to accomodate your query of the cite (which not sanction on RSN yet) was added with a requisite tag pending consensus. the issue of a mohajjir was discussed both on this page and on the requisite wikipedia for it. Just because you dont want to see that/agree it doesnt make it any less relevant that the SOUTH ASIAN CONTEXT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE ARABIC ROOTS. RS criteria is no adjudged by YOU, if it was then we wouldnt have a RSN noticeboard. It would help if you supported your view like epeefleche did above. (and for the issue you could answer the statements made about the issue of the term which you have ignored seekign a Red herring over source. (see the undisputed All Pakistan Muhajir Student Organization)
If, and when, consensus says the cite is unreliable then im obviously accepted to removing it, but now on the whim of 1 editor doesnt constitue a consensus! Wikipedia:Consensus#Process(Lihaas (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
I never ever supported that citation, and consensus is not required to remove it. I support its removal as Epeefleche also does above, where is this consensus you claim, there is just you, its not my whim its not wikipedia reliable, we don't leave it there we remove it.Off2riorob (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WHAT IS THE RSN DISCUSSION FOR THEN? ITS STILL ONGOING AND CONSENSUS HAS NOT BEEN MADE. IVE ACCOMODATED TO TAG IT, BUT WERE STILL AWAITING CONSENSUS
i dont mean to "shout" but apparently youre defeating the point of your own query on RSN to ask if it is reliable. You were in your right to be bold, but it was challenged and hence we need to build consensus. I responded to epeefleeche's query in the affirmative and hence tagged the article pending your consensus building. in startk contrast to your own attempt at consensus building, in the interim you are WP:CENSORSHIP(Lihaas (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Please stop posting in caps as per talkpage etiquette. It is not wikipedia reliable and thats that, just remove it and forget about it. Off2riorob (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a good faith search, both on the blog itself and on google news and google books and google web, and cannot find indicia to suggest that it is an RS. I've not seen my friend Lihaas or anyone else point to anything I've missed. Under the circumstances, I would suggest that the matter be removed from the article, as it has been questioned, no reasonable support has been supplied for it being an RS, and as such it is the same as any bald unsourced statement -- especially as 2 of the three of us are of that view already (and perhaps three, in truth, if Lihaas is only seeking to have a placeholder). We would not put in an unsourced statement of such gravity as a placeholder, if it is questioned (especially), and there is nothing to indicate that this is any better. IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously not a WP:RS. The link should be removed. Nanobear (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who's the killer???

[edit]

There seems to be next to no infomation whatsoever on the killer. Considering the killer is still at large there should surely be some infomation?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.79.71 (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motive

[edit]

No motive is given for the murder. If no motive has ever been uncovered, the article should say that instead of leaving the reader hanging. howcheng {chat} 18:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Imran Farooq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Imran Farooq. 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) 13:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Imran Farooq. 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) 07:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imran_Farooq&oldid=1256556720"