Artmartxx
Welcome
edit
|
September 2011
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:182.185.234.113 has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Mbinebri talk ← 16:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Zara Durrani, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The material you added was all copyrighted, and therefore can't be used as you used it (just copied-and-pasted). Nolelover Talk·Contribs 21:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Talk back
edit
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Requested review: Mohammad Ali Talpur
editHi. :) While I don't usually have time to review articles, I'm afraid, I have taken a few minutes to look at this one. I appreciate your goals of expanding coverage of this important subject on Wikipedia, and I do understand that it can be daunting to get started. There's a lot to learn. :)
I did notice one big problem: some of the content in the article was copied directly from this source. I'm afraid that per Wikipedia's copyright policies, we absolutely cannot do this. Because we must remain compliant with the laws of the United States (the Wikimedia Foundation, that runs us, is located there), we take this policy pretty seriously and have to block contributors who violate that policy repeatedly after warning. There's a pretty good overview of our copyright policies at WP:Copy-paste. To boil it down even more, you cannot copy or even closely follow content from any other source (print or web) unless you can prove that it is public domain or compatibly licensed. (Most content is not, even if it doesn't say that it is copyrighted.) Except for brief and clearly marked quotations, you have to use the information you find in sources to produce text that is written in your own way, which can include not only using different words but different organization of words. It's complicated, and I hope that WP:Copy-paste will help explain it better. :) If you have any questions about this important policy, please let me know at my talk page.
Otherwise, for the most part, the article seems to be a good start, but there are a few additional concerns I see.
Wikipedia's three core content policies work together to make sure that our articles are all neutral and reflect knowledge that has been previously published elsewhere (since we are an encyclopedia and not supposed to publish "new" opinions or facts). The verifiability policy says that everything on Wikipedia has to be sourced to a reliable source. It's worth a read; whether or not a source is reliable depends on how you're using it sometimes, although there are a few sources that are never reliable. The "neutral point of view" policy says that we can't introduce bias into articles. If there is praise or criticism in an article, it has to have been said by a reliable source, and we have to identify what reliable source said it. We also have to make sure it is "balanced"--that means that if 20 sources praise an artist and 1 criticizes him, we need to make it clear in our article that he is generally well received by critics and not focus too much on the one person who disagrees. :) The policy against "original research" means that we can't put information into articles because we believe it is true or because we conclude that it is true because of what we've read. That's a complicated policy, really, and it's definitely worth reading through as well.
The remaining section about his art career is a problem under these policies. I do not know where this information is coming from, so it needs to be sourced. I do not know whose opinion it is that his drawings "reflect the magical quality that a viewer can not resist to pass through." It sounds as though we, the writers of Wikipedia, have that opinion, and we're not allowed. We need to cite the reliably published critic who holds that view.
Also, while you have sourced much of the information in the article, you have not provide a source for the piece of information that probably needs it the most: "He is considered the only minimalist artist in the Pakistan because of his linear drawings." By whom? Tell us who considers him this, and prove it.
A few other things it seems you may need to read up on (less urgent, as these are "style" issues) is the way we format references here and how we pick external links.
Your references are bare URLs. This serves in an emergency, but it is a dangerous practice in the long run because if that URL ever goes dead, we have no idea what was there. We try to give as much information about sources as we reliably can.
Here's how we do this, taking one of your sources: http://www.nca.edu.pk/finearts.htm
<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.nca.edu.pk/finearts.htm | title = Assistant Professors | author = | date = | work = National College of Arts | publisher = National College of the Arts Lahore | accessdate = 2011-10-01}}</ref>
In your works cited, this will look like this:
- "Assistant Professors". National College of Arts. National College of the Arts Lahore. Retrieved 2011-10-01.
As you can see, this is much more complete! You can just copy this over to replace your first reference if you like. To read more about formatting the others, you might review Wikipedia:Citation templates. It looks complicated at first, but it's pretty easy once you get the hang of it. :)
In your external links, you have repeated some that you've used as sources, I note, and some of them don't really seem to offer much value to readers who follow them. The point of external links is to offer more reading to our audience who may be interested in the subject. The best place to learn to work with these is Wikipedia:External links.
Good luck, and happy editing. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
AfD on Maheen Ali
editHi, I noticed you added a WP:AfD notice to Maheen Ali, however you never completed the listing process, you also needed to create a nomination page, and list the nomination in the AfD log. See WP:AFDHOW for complete instructions. I have removed the tag, but feel free to nominate it again, just make sure to complete the process. Monty845 21:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
MfD nomination of User talk:182.185.231.113
editUser talk:182.185.231.113, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:182.185.231.113 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:182.185.231.113 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Monty845 21:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Merger discussion for Truck art in Pakistan
edit
An article that you have been involved in editing, Truck art in Pakistan, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. wia (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
Hi. removed the Advert tag, would love to hear your thoughts on the matter. Best, Pratat (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)