User talk:Ciybersal

September 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Articles shouldn't say that a subject "has been described" as something, without telling the reader (in text as well as reference) who was doing the describing - this is what Wikipedia terms WP:WEASEL wording. McGeddon (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Yes If I do provide in text as well (as well as in reference) then it would be acceptable? So for example if I write London has been crowned the "worlds favourite City" by Mastercard Global Cities Index (with refrence/quote cited as ((http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/london-crowned-worlds-favourite-city-5817469) that would do Yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciybersal (talk • contribs) 10:52, 17 September 2015‎

That would solve the WP:WEASEL problem, but still has issues in that it's promoting a (possibly unremarkable?) corporate announcement, it's using a tabloid newspaper as a source, and the WP:LEAD section of an article should summarise the body, rather than introducing new statements which don't get mentioned again further down.

I'd recommend suggesting the changes at Talk:London to get feedback from editors who've worked on the article in the past - this seems like the kind of thing that there's probably been previous discussions about. --McGeddon (talk) 09:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the same content back a few times

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at London. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you.--McGeddon (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ciybersal, I responded to two of your comments on the Londond talk page. As there were two separate questions I put my answers after each of your questions so splitting up your post. It seems logical to me to start two threads. If you object please let me know, or feel free to change the format yourself. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ciybersal, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Ciybersal! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! ChamithN (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Defence Housing Authority, Karachi, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Blogs are not reliable sources. Also please respect that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a travel guide or the Yellow Pages. Thomas.W ^talk 07:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thomas.

I added content with citing sources such as that of DHAtoday.com which seems to me a fairly reliable source. Fair enough that blogs should not be added. But if I did cite sources and I even cited statistics complied by zameen.com Pakistan's largest real estate web portal then why has my entire paragraph (Real Estate and Economy) been removed??? In my belief I quoted some of the most reliable sources statistics in regards to real estate of DHA Karachi therefore I do not agree that they should be removed. Furthermore the under the sub-heading "System of Streets and Lanes" and "Defence Authority College of Business" in the article DHA Karachi, not a single reference has been citied so why did you not remove them??— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciybersal (talk • contribs) 11:52, 22 September 2015‎

We do not add everything that can be sourced, only material that is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages or a travel guide, so the material you add does not belong here. Thomas.W ^talk 15:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Karachi, you may be blocked from editing. Thomas.W ^talk 15:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing???? Are you seriously kidding me?? If you feel the article is too long or not suitable for a particular page then perhaps I could add it to another page where it would be suitable. As I cited genuine references (many of them from official websites) and added nothing that did not have a reference. I however categorically deny promoting or advertising anything!!

Still you have not answered my question of why in DHA Karachi article you have not removed entire paragraphs under subheadings I mentioned above which do not even have a single reference (forget reliable sources). How do you know this kind of non-referenced material is correct?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciybersal (talk • contribs) 22 September 2015‎

October 2015

~~Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Clifton, Karachi, you may be blocked from editing.~~ Yamaguchi先生 18:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Thank you for calling my edits "in good faith" as indeed they are. Could you possibly give me some suggestions on what to add onto this article as the criteria for good faith "disruptive edits" seems a bit ambiguous to me despite going through the wikipedia section on it.

Could you please let me know for example why the "Economy" section that I added in "Clifton, Karachi" with one single sentence stating that "The Headquarters of Pakistan's largest company, Pakistan State Oil is located on Khayaban-e-Iqbal in Clifton" (with official reference of the Pakistan State Oil web address) has been REVERTED. I do not know...is this considered promotional or non-encyclopaedic material? I am asking in good faith.

Similarly I added on to the "London" article on the "Leisure and Entertainment" section stating its significance locally and globally and it has been accepted by senior editors on that article and nobody considered it "promotional material" although it can be argued to be, as are many other articles on wikipedia stating significance and/or importance of an area/city/country. So I am failing to understand if I add the sentence "Karachi has some of the largest shopping malls in the country such as X, Y (with strong/official sources) then why is it reverted and considered "promotional material"??

Also amongst other material, if I add as I did along the lines "Clifton, Karachi is home to one of the most expensive real estate in the country with average prices of houses to be "xx" as provided by zameen.com (http://www.zameen.com/about/aboutus.html) or a stronger newspaper reference, would it be considered "non-encyclopaedic/ promotional material" as well? If so then I also read in the "New York City" wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City#Economy "The Time Warner Center is the property with the highest-listed market value in the city, at US$1.1 billion in 2006" and also "According to Forbes, in 2014, Manhattan was home to six of the top ten zip codes in the United States by median housing price"

Are the above sentences not non-encyclopaedic material? Please enlighten me.

It appears as if you are promoting various corporate entities in locality articles, such as the Clifton, Karachi article, without providing proper attribution. Please, avoid original research and do not make material changes to these articles unless you are prepared to provide a reliable third party source for each and every change. If the subject matter you are adding has not received such coverage, then please refrain from adding it without consensus to do so. If you have any further questions or concerns pertaining directly to the Clifton, Karachi article, please raise them at Talk:Clifton, Karachi for community input. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 22:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ciybersal. I wanted to apologize for my initial template interaction, as I feel that it was potentially confusing and not really specific to the issues at hand. Another editor, Wehwalt, has brought this to my attention and while we may not see eye to eye, I do agree that I could have communicated better. With your change to the Clifton, Karachi page [1] on 21:42, 4 October 2015, six new sections were added without a source, markup requesting a {{better source}} was removed without providing a better source as requested, and undue weight was given to commercial/tourism aspects of the location while using a series of peacock terms that did not agree with our neutral point of view policy.

The Wikipedia:Verifiability policy dictates that article content must be attributed to a reliable source which may be verified by other editors and readers. With your edit, you took modified two sections, and introduced new sections on Demography, Location, Housing, Consulates, Shopping Centres, Places of Worship, "Main Areas of Clifton", and another section dedicated to the Karachi Port Trust Underpass. With exception to the Shopping Centres section, no sources were provided for Demography, Location, Housing, Consulates, Places of Worship, Main Areas of Clifton, or the Karachi Port Trust Underpass sections. The secondary concern is due and undue weight. In an ideal situation, these sections should not only be sourced, but attributed to reliable third party publications, taking into consideration the importance and relevancy of the material being introduced, and how it balances with other subjects being presented within the Clifton,_Karachi article.

For example, consider the Main Areas of Clifton section. This is bound to lead to unnecessary disputes over what is or is not a "main area". An alternate way to present this material would be to show the reader why these are important to Clifton using prose, which is supported by reliable sources that the reader may verify. You may also be interested in contributing to Wikivoyage, which is a free web-based travel guide similar to Wikipedia in that it is a wiki that anyone can edit, and is hosted by the same non-profit Wikimedia Foundation.

I do not mean to overwhelm. Please consider these issues raised above, and again I do sincerely apologize for any confusion that I may have caused. If you have any further questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]