You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juvenile justice in Pakistan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Safiel (talk) 16:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Hi AJillani. Thanks for following up with me about your article. I'm sorry but I could not accept it at this time, although I hope you will keep working on it and resubmit it when it's ready. The reason I could not accept it is because information contained in Wikipedia articles must be supported by reliable, independent sources. Please review identifying reliable sources and verifiability of articles. Your article contained no sources for any of the information contained in it and because this is an encyclopedia the sources must be published sources so that readers can verify the information contained in them. Wikipedia does not post editorials or opinion pieces but rather only factual articles. If you need help with how to format your references you may go to referencing for beginners and inline citation help. If I can be of any further assistance, you can reach me at my talk page. Best Regards, Snowysusan (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Society for the Protection of the Rights of the Child
Hi AJillani. The same comments (above) apply to your submission regarding the Society for the Protection of the Rights of the Child. There are no sources listed at all and it will be rejected unless you edit it to include independent, reliable sources. Best Regards, Snowysusan (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All information in Wikipedia articles must be referenced to a source. Please review the help pages at the links I have provided to you for more information - I can't explain it any better than the policies set out on those help pages. An overview can also be found at citing sources. All Wikipedia articles require references to sources for the information contained in them. If you don't include reliable, third party references, your article can not be accepted - there isn't any way around this criteria. The only way wikipedia can maintain it's credibility is to ensure that these standards are applied to all articles. Best Regards, Snowysusan (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Hello sir! I'm an editor who was notified of your actions, and I understand what you are trying to do. SPARC does seem notable and its focus is of importance. I would like to help to write an article and fix up the existing once you created. Wikipedia is not an academic journal, but objective and careful wording. With some work, I think that your articles would be better recieved by the world and look better. It is very difficult to read and understand your previous articles. Also, despite your personal interest and activities, Wikipedia has additional scrutiny of people close to the subject, so that material is neither promotional or biased. Articles that share a personal connection are also difficult to reliably source as we have a burden of secondary source verification. It may seem counterproductive, but Wikipedia does not make news and it does not publish accounts of any topic. I would like to assist you. Please message me or reply beneath this post if you want me to help. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Chris: Im open to your editing help. So please feel free to make changes that you think may be acceptable to Wikipedia. I tried to remain objective. However, there is little which has so far been done in this area and this is the reason I wish to place it on Wikipedia to help others. The objective is not promotional at all which I hope you appreciate. AJillani (talk) 08:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a new page at Society for the Protection of the Rights of the Child and I've updates the page for SPARC (disambiguation) to include the organization. I may take action on SPARC as we have a growing list of other SPARCs, and point to the disamb page instead. The organization is more then notable. Much of the material you included wasn't sourced properly and they are overreacting to the matter. Though to be fair, I probably wouldn't have passed it at AFC without good sources. Though the organization does seem immediately notable. Take a peek at the page! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've gotten about all the useful material off your previous article for creation pages. If you have more information that I can browse, I'll update accordingly. Otherwise I'll have to fall back on other sources as I find them. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Chris:
I can send you more material.
Should I place it here? Or can I send it to you by email?
When you talk about SPARC, I presume you are talking about SPARC & BF. Is my understanding correct?
If you think the material is not sourced properly, pls feel free to edit as you like.
I have another suggestion as well. We can change the Article heading to Breastfeeding in Pakistan instead of SPARC & BF. And then under this, we can place some of the info given under the present article.
You are being helpful and I will have no problem if you create another article titled Breastfeeding in Pakistan and place the current material under it, with modifications.
Thanx once againAJillani (talk) 09:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SPARC & Breastfeeding until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Probation in Pakistan, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Please don't move pages to talk pages of nonexistent users. i see that you have done this with User talk:Minorities in India, and more than once with User talk:Child Marriage, despite the fact that there is no user named either "Minorities in India" or "Child Marriage". i am not sure what your purpose was in making those moves, but what ever the purpose, such moves can be very disruptive, as they can make it very difficult to trace the history of pages. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral point of view
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. You were told over two years ago on this talk page that Wikipedia is not the place for advocacy, and since then the same point has been made in connection with your editing in at least two deletion discussions and at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but you continue to use Wikipedia to promote causes and advocate a point of view. Your recent editing of Child marriage, for example, was an unambiguous attempt to publicise a point of view, including telling us that certain practices are "a violation, abuse and impairment of human rights", "harmful", "obstacles to the full enjoyment of human rights", etc etc. No matter how much you are convinced that your opinion is the right opinion, Wikipedia does not exist for people to promote their opinions, and maintaining a neutral point of view is a requirement for editing Wikipedia articles. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the messages you have received, and in particular the warning immediately above, you have continued to edit in ways that unambiguously promote a point of view. Your latest editing, for example, contained such language as "it has adverse consequences on the enjoyment of rights". It is clear from looking at your editing history that you have a close professional involvement in the subjects about which you are editing, and it is entirely possible that you are so closely involved that it is difficult, or even impossible, to stand back and see what you write from a detached perspective, in which case you may genuinely not be able to see that describing something as "adverse consequences" is expressing a value judgement. This sort of difficulty in seeing how your own writing will look from the detached perspective of an uninvolved observer is, in fact, one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines discourage editors from contributing on a subject in which they are closely involved. You should be very cautious about writing in any article relating to such subjects to which you are connected, and certainly not be creating new articles to tell the world about the good work of any organisation or campaign that you are involved in.
Since you have continued to edit in ways that are inconsistent with the policy that Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, you have been blocked from editing for three days. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions, but please think carefully about how you do so. If you believe there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
There is no reason to block. The text has not mentioned any individual or organization. I was in the process of adding the references. The purpose of the text can be judged from the fact that despite having billions (not millions) of entries in Wikipedia, you dont have any on this subject, except three paragraphs. Watson's comments on Oct 11, 2013 were taken into account and the entry was re-edited by me and the opinions were taken out. Despite this, if he felt that an entry needed editing,he could simply have pointed that out instead of deleting the whole entry and blocking me. This is in bad faith and I hate to say this but perhaps shows that someone is enjoying the authority he has. He says that I should be editing things that I am not involved in. How on earth can I do this if I dont know about the subject? Im not a mathmatecian and it would be stupid to be editing something relating to it, just like it may be vice versa in this case. Im new at Wikipedia and am at a learning stage. I need guidance and not corporal punishment from folks like Watson.AJillani (talk) 09:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I think the point that JamesBWatson is trying to make here is that you've had plenty of chances and been given plenty of warnings about this issue previously.
Don't get us wrong, we appreciate that you're trying to help - but there's a point where misguided help becomes disruptive. As an encyclopedia, we have to adhere to a neutral point of view. Unfortunately, your inability to do so - after repeated warnings - led to this block.
While I'm not quite sure how you're new to Wikipedia, given that you've been here for two years, I'd be happy to clear up anything you find vague about our policies. For now, please take some time to read up on the listed policies (namely the conflict of interest policy) and feel free to ask any questions below. Regards, m.o.p19:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside your accusation that I have acted in "bad faith", I will try to clarify some of the other issues that have raised in your unblock request.
I did not say that you should edit on subjects you know nothing about, nor even that you should not edit at all about subjects to which you have a connection. What I said was (1) you should "be very cautious" when editing about such subjects, and (2) you should not create articles to announce to the world that an organisation is doing what you regard as "good work". That falls far short of telling you to write only about subjects you know nothing about.
It is certainly true that your latest editing was not so blatantly promotional as some of your earlier editing, and you clearly had tried to cut out the promotional aspect. Perhaps it would have helped if I had acknowledged that in my block notice. Indeed, it is precisely because you had evidently tried to remove the promotional tone from your article, that I took the trouble to explain to you that you had not been entirely successful (quoting one short example to illustrate the fact), and to explain that it can be "difficult, or even impossible" to see your own writing objectively. It would have been much easier and quicker for me to simply post a standard block notice telling you that you were blocked for using Wikipedia for promotion, and I would have done so if I had thought that you were deliberately trying to use Wikipedia for spam. I would also, in that situation, have blocked you indefinitely, rather than just for a few days. Instead, I spent some time and effort in trying to explain to you what the problems were, in the hope that it would help you to understand how to edit in acceptable ways in the future.
You say that I could have pointed out what needed improving, rather than blocking you. However, several attempts had been made to point out the problem, ranging from KuyaBriBri's message in September 2011 to my message of 11 October 2013. When an editor has been told over and over again that his or her editing is unacceptable because it is advocating a point of view, but he or she still continues to use Wikipedia for advocacy, there eventually comes a time when something else has to be done to make the point that complying with Wikipedia policy is not optional. My assessment was that the best way to do that would be a short block accompanied by a careful explanation of what the problem is. Evidently my explanation did not convey to you what it was intended to, which is unfortunate, but that was the intended purpose. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, you very seriously overestimate the size of Wikipedia. The total number of Wikipedia articles is just below 30 million, with somewhat more than 4 million of those being in the English language version of Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for December 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hudood Ordinance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whipping (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
