User talk:Hkkingg

April 2023

Hello, I'm TriskySeskel. I noticed that you recently removed content from WGHR (Georgia) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. TriskySeskel (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well you noticed wrong, because I explained in my edit summary why!!!! Are you some kind of bot???? Hkkingg (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Muhammed Majeed for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Muhammed Majeed 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/Muhammed Majeed 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.

Oaktree b (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP 49.206.255.210 (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Indian Pharmacists

A tag has been placed on Category:Indian Pharmacists indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Muhammed Majeed (scientist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Muhammed Majeed (scientist) 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/Muhammed Majeed (scientist) 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.

Aintabli (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

—Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I posted this here because I've observed you adding unreliable sources as citations on topics related to Pakistan. It's important to remember that Pakistan-related topics fall under WP:CTOPICS and editing in this area should be approached with care. Thanks! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello both,

Saqib: this template is very inappropriate. And so is the message you wrote five minutes later. That TV film is NOT a contentious topic. On top of this, you don't specify what edits you have in mind nor what sources YOU consider unreliable. As I told you when you came with the same kind of "friendly reminder", on my tp, YOU should be more careful in your approach. Maybe the sources aren't great, maybe some are unreliable but you reverted Hkkingg's edit and that should be enough. (I will revert your removal, btw, not that it matters). There is no need to come here with this kind of message. Explain what sources you consider unreliable and why you think so, in detail, or just use the article talk page The message you left suggests there is a pattern in Hkkingg's edits. Was it the case? Thank you.

NB- Unless I am very much mistaken, the subject India+Pakistan+Afghanistan is contentious not everything that's related to Pakistan (nor India, nor Afghanistan, as separate entities)!!!! -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mushy Yank, Of course, I'll explain why I added this notice. But before that, I want to ask are you stalking my edits? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: No. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mushy Yank, Firstly, as per my understanding, the policy applies to all topics related to any of the mentioned 03 countries, not just those involving all three countries. Secondly, the notice isn't intended as some sort of WARNING. It's just imply an introduction to contentious topics and it was placed here because this user added unreliable sources to the article, I'm unsure why you labeled the notice as inappropriate and even say that There is no need to come here with this kind of message. And even if you don't regard those sources as unreliable, do you think it's appropriate to reinstate sources that have been questioned by other editors? And this isn't the first instance of such action on your part, by the way. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it is appropriate in this case, yes, and still disagree with your overall assessment. No further comment from me here. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mushy Yank, Why do you intervene in a discussion only to abruptly end it by saying you have no further comments? Anyway, I've no interest to discuss this, too as I'm currently working on a draft detailing why I consider those sources UNRELIABLE. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh....I didn't Intervene only to abruptly end (the discussion), I intervened to reply on 2 points and then said I would not write anymore on the issue here, mostly because this is not my TP, if you want to know why. You have no interest to discuss this? Ah, OK. I thought you had started this section. Also, I think that the sequence Why do you intervene in a discussion only to abruptly end it by saying you have no further comments? Anyway, I've no interest to discuss this, is highly ironic. I found it extremely funny, I confess. Thanks! -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to note that this is an "alert". It carries no meaning other than to make you aware of the contentious topics procedure and that it is in use for the topic area mentioned. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamy Jazz, Is it against the rules or considered inappropriate to inform people about this when they add unreliable sources to pages? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any edits, including completely uncontroversial edits, to a contentious topic area allow the use of an alert (based on Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Awareness of contentious topics). Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! But is any TV series from Pakistan considered a contentious topic, then? My bad, apologies, if that is the case and if I perceived a warning where just an informative alert was meant. And allusion to a pattern of editing in the subsequent message, when it was only a genuinely friendly reminder that a particular source was unreliable. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. While a TV series itself is unlikely to be controversial outside Wikipedia, there have been issues with editors who contributed to articles related to these countries as detailed in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I stand corrected. My apologies for the undue indignation.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib I returned today after being away for four days and found this message. I am uncertain which specific sources are considered bad or why they are deemed so, as no details or evidence have been provided to support the claim that they are paid blogs or otherwise unreliable. I will also address this in the AFD. Hkkingg (talk) 06:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]