User talk:Hassankhanonline

Speedy deletion nomination of Lyallpur Oil Tool

Hello Hassankhanonline,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Lyallpur Oil Tool for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Lyallpur Oil Tool. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 10:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Hassankhanonline. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations.

On Talk:Lyallpur Oil Tool you said "I am working in Lyallpur Oil Tool PVT as other organization pages we've created this as a biography for our company." Companies and organisations are not allowed to create biography or profile pages for themselves - that is not what Wikipedia is for. When a company is notable it can have a Wikipedia article, ideally created by somebody completely unconnected to the company. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 11:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your comment on the talk page

The page was extremely promotional, full of glowing adjectives: "a leading developing supplier...Quality driven... strategically located offices... firm local presence... unparalleled levels of knowledge competency... personalized touch..." etc. That's not an encyclopedia article, it's an advertisement. Wikipedia is not here for companies to promote themselves.

Since you work for the company, you have a WP:Conflict of interest. COI editing is strongly discouraged, precisely because COI editors are unable to take a neutral view of their subject. Please read that guideline and the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, and note that you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use ("Paid contributions without disclosure" under section 4), and in some jurisdictions by laws against covert advertising, to disclose your interest in any edits where you have a COI. JohnCD (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing sourced information

Please do not remove sourced information without good reason. Kahn is not listed as a member of the parliament here http://gbla.gov.pk/members/index. So there is no proof that he is actually still a member but there are sources to say he has been disqualified. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He is sitting meme er of the parliament

He is the sitting member of the parliament the websote you’re refering to isnt updated for years. I am removing the article and will publish again once the website is updated Hassankhanonline (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am now warning you a second time not to remove sourced information unless you have a source yourself to prove it is untrue. I have now provided you with the government web site that shows he is not a member of parliament and a news website that says he was disqualified. This may be untrue but you must provide sources that show this is untrue. If you continue to revert you may fall foul of the WP:3RR rule and be blocked for edit warring. Dom from Paris (talk) 05:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is wrong. I've deleted the page because of its defaming Mr. Khan with false information. I shall get back in a day or two after getting the government site updated with his name.

I have found and added the judgement from the Supreme Appellate Court, Gilgit-Baltistan disqualifying him from being a member of parliament. Please do not remove any of the information concerning his disqualification from now on. --Dom from Paris (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Shah Salim Khan. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Pkbwcgs (talk) 07:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Shah Salim Khan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question for you

I saw that an edit was made here to Shah Salim Khan - was this you and done accidentally while you were logged out? Assuming this was you - if you'd like me to redact and hide the IP address from the public for your privacy and security, I can definitely do that for you. Just let me know as soon as you can. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: another IP edit removing sourced information possibly done "accidentally" again by this user. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Domdeparis - Oh, joy.... lol. Thanks for letting me know. I'm taking a look now. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is my edit. Please remove my IP.

Oops in that case you have violated WP:3RR I think...Dom from Paris (talk) 12:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I see. New to Wikipedia. Accept my apology.

It is strange that you logged off to edit once I had warned you that you were edit warring and likely to be blocked if it continued. Anyhow can you confirm that you will not try to remove the information about Khan's disqualification as a member of parliament either with your account or otherwise now that I have given the official source for his disqualification? --Dom from Paris (talk) 12:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The official source even says that the elections are to be held after 2 weeks of the judgment. After the 2 weeks of judgment, he was elected back as the member.

So, for that reason i am suggesting to remove the article until the official site is updated.

Is it possible to delete the page or not?

The source does not say that the elections were to be held 2 weeks after the judgement it said "The Chief Election Commissioner Gilgit-Baltistan is also directed to announce “Election Schedule” of Bye-Election GBLA-6 HNRIII within two weeks for holding Bye-Election of GBLA-6 HNR-III within prescribed time in accordance with law." The election schedule was to be announced but not the election was to be held. What you are saying is blatently not possible. A by-election cannot possibly be organised in just 2 weeks. If you wish to nominate it for deletion you can but it is highly unlikely that it will be deleted. You first of all said that it was fake news that he had been disqualified, I have proved that this is not true you are now admitting that he was disqualified but are trying to pretend that he has been reelected. I am sorry but I do not believe that you are here to create an encyclopedia. @Oshwah: maybe there is something that you can suggest? --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added extended confirmed protection to the article due to content disputes and edit warring (at the time, I was very certain but did not have irrefutable evidence that the IP edits were by this user). Hassankhanonline, had this been established earlier, you most certainly would have been temporarily blocked for edit warring, which you were warned and asked to stop doing in the discussion immediately above this one. Since time has passed, the article is protected, and the edit warring is no longer actively occurring (again, because of the protection) - I can't (and wouldn't) block you for it now. Please keep this policy in mind when making edits to articles. edit warring (and violating the blight-line three revert rule) is disruptive and all editors are expected to refrain from such behaviors and discuss disputes and disagreements on the articles' talk pages. That being said, this is what should be done (as explained to you on my user talk page) - if content on the article is inaccurate, add a discussion to the article's talk page, include references to support your thoughts, and other editors will be able to review and discuss it. Also, I've removed the IP information from the edits for you as requested. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I totally understand. all the concern mentioned by you both. But this was the information I was provided, and I was following, But I am sure he is currently sitting member of the Assembly. Please allow me to delete this for now. As I have requested the official website to update his Name. Once its updated I shall get the article back live with official links.

The information that is on the page is sourced and from reliable sources notably the Supreme Appellate Court ruling. If you honestly believe that he is still a sitting member find the sources that say he was reelected or that the decision was overturned but until then the only way of having the page removed is through a deletion discussion because I am 100% sure that it will not be speedily deleted as none of the different criteria are fulfilled as far as I can see. I do not think there is a snowball's chance in hell of this article being deleted through a discussion though. The subject meets the notability criteria WP:POLITICIAN as an ex-member of a regional parliament and the information about his disqualification is not unduly weighted. I would suggest that you follow Oshwah's advice and open a discussion on the article's talk page and be sure that there are suitable sources to back up your arguments. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. please remeber to sign all comments on talk pages including yours by either clicking on one of the signature buttons or by typing 4 tildes like this ~~~~

Alright and please guide me if I want to change the word disqualifed to ex what should be done in this regard? Hassankhanonline (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He was disqualified and that is it. By writing "ex" it leaves a doubt as to why he is no longer a politician. The infobox is meant just to summarise what is in the article and in the article the disqualification is mentioned so disqualified is factual and appropriate. I would leave this subject alone now if I were you until you have the neccessary sources to show he is still a sitting member. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To show that he's a sitting member i need time to update the sites and ask news to report his activity, until that please delete as its totally defaming Mr. Khan.Hassankhanonline (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am certain there is nothing libellous here as everything is sourced and nothing has been added that isn't in the sources but if you do believe that there is a problem please read WP:LIBEL as there is useful advice how to contact the foundation by email. But unless you have a source to show that what is written is untrue or misrepresenting the truth you will be wasting your time I think. Anyway I've really said all I can say and I can't keep exlaining the same thing over and over again so I can just wish you happy editing now. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help required

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I need help to unlock Shah Salim Khan and place it for speedy deletion as it is clearly eligible for Speedy Deletion in line with WP:G10 reason. As it's certain that the page is being used by Shah Salim enemies to create and edit the page to defame.

I strongly object to this personal attack as I am a new pages reviewer and came across this page whilst patrolling and added the information that I found in sources when trying to improve the article. I know nothing about the subject of the article over and above what is written in the sources. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dom, I am not objecting you. I am objecting to the one who created the page. As, this page was never required to be created. Hassankhanonline (talk) 09:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also you're taking this as the personal attack, and the personal attacks done on Shah Salim Khan what are your thoughts on this?Hassankhanonline (talk) 09:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking it as a personal attack because you are accusing someone, either on me or another unnamed editor, of using Wikipedia to defame the subject. The person who created the page mentioned nothing about him being disqualified and it was not an attack page at all in fact it looked more like a promotional page as this shows. I am the only editor who added negative information because the original article contained errors and I edited and added what I found in reliable sources. So logically I am the only one you could accuse of being an enemy of the subject. --Dom from Paris (talk) 09:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not accusing you at all. This article was made so that the wiki editors could add extra information and make it rank on google against its offical name search. It's obvious that this article was made for promotional purposes, so wiki editors could add other information. If it wasn't you, it would be someone else adding this information. So, it obvious that the page was actually made with promotional content which is now leading to defaming the personality and also making it rank on Google against its name search.Hassankhanonline (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I need admin help to delete the page as according to Speedy Deletion Criteria "These pages should be speedily deleted when there is no neutral version in the page history to revert to" I request wiki admin who can give a neutral judgment for this.

Place you request on the article's talk page with {{Edit protected}} - it does not need an admin to do add that. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 16:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rohjones, Request edit please approve. Hassankhanonline (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Hello, I'm Domdeparis. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. This is unacceptable. [1] Dom from Paris (talk) 09:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

which comment are you talking about?Hassankhanonline (talk) 09:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your email

Hi I saw you sent me an email. I prefer to use talk pages when discussing articles so please do not hesitate to ask you questions here. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]