User talk:HussainAbbas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:HussainAbbas/Status


I LOVE YOU ALL

Yeah, thanks. -- Michaelas10 20:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Already replied

Yes, I've already replied, see above. Also, if you want to see when I'll answer you in this talk page, use the watch and the watchlist features. Michaelas10 21:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Darrell Hair

These edits do not abide by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. You can read WP:NPOV for more information on how to comply with it. Also, the reference you attempted to introduce did nto support or even make reference to the text it was added with. This could be a genuine mistake, in which case I can only ask you to be more careful. If not then it is a fundamentally dishonest practice and I would request that you please don't do it again. --Cherry blossom tree 14:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for guiding me to the neutral policy of wikipedia but if suggesting the points of view of the guys like imran khan ,viv richards etc is against the neutral policy of Wikipedia ,then quoting Simon Taufel's point of view is also (as the rules cant be different)and it also deserves to be removed since quoting subjective statements by any individual can mar the neutrality of the article (but then why only remove what others have to say while leaving the comments of Taufel untouched) cricket will always be remembered for Richards,Imrans,Kapils, Ranatungas or Akrams but never for the taufels (or any other umpire for that matter).Hussain 14:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes and for the wrong link cric info has a policy of moving the older articles on the front page and replace them with newer ones however i have replaced them with other links i hope you can use your vigilance this time too and verify this links too for me thankyou Hussain 14:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
You are not quoting anyone's point of view, you are stating that various ex-players have accused him of racism without pointing to where they have done it. The statement about Taufel is linked to an article in which he has made that statement so we can verify that he actually said it. If you wanted to change the paragraph to say something along the lines of "Hair divides opinion - he has been criticised by individuals such as Viv Richards but supported by individuals such as Taufel" then that would be fine as long as it is supported by a reference.
You also seem to want to introduce the word racial into the article but the article that this statement is referenced to does not mention racial bias. I have looked for a reliable source that discusses this but all I found were posts on message boards. If you can find a source for this statement then it can be included but otherwise it cannot.
We need to be very careful when editing articles on living people due to the problem of libel, both from a legal and moral perspective. This means that we need to be absolutely certain that all negative statements are referenced to other sources to make sure that they are all true. --Cherry blossom tree 14:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't have time to go through your last edits thoroughly now but I can't see that any of the articles you linked specifically mention racism so I will remove that word but leave the rest for now at least. Thanks for providing the citations.--Cherry blossom tree 15:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
my dear biases are along certain lines be it religious , literal , racial, social or any else ; in case of Hair the most obvious bias is along the racial lines , which former cricketer (some of the ones mentioned above) too have verified. as for not finding any source other than message boards regarding the issue my advise is to use a 'reliable' search engine like googe when searching for it next time Hussain 15:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC) also i didnt say that he is a racist , I said that he has been accused of racism ,by some .Hussain 15:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the references to Viv Richards and Wasim Akram since neither of them made any particularly critical reference to Hair in the articles quoted - Viv said "This Mr Hair fellow seems to have been in the thick of things for some time and maybe he could be a part of the contributing factor to all that happened - but there could be so many different sides to the story." and Wasim didn't mention him at all.
Biases may be along certain lines but on Wikipedia we do not deduce these ourselves - this would violate our no original research policy - we report on others doing so which was what I asked you to do. I was hoping for an article accusing him of racism rather than one suggesting that some unnamed third parties may once have thought it but it will suffice.
I didn't say that you had accused him of racism.--Cherry blossom tree 18:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I edited from 'umpires' to 'umpire' Simon Taufel as there have nt been any statement (in that link) categorically supporting Hair other than Taufel Hussain 22:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good catch. I was being over-vague when I wrote that line. --Cherry blossom tree 22:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

thankyou Hussain 09:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


By the way I have revised your edits in the 2006 Oval test coloumn , as the words of Mr. Speed have been highlighted in the original reference and more so I feel that his words also do carry great weight in Umpire Hair's article because he is currently his boss at the moment Hussain 09:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've moved that statement up to the earlier section discussing racism since it seemed to fit better there. --Cherry blossom tree 10:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note

Please don't screw around by, for instance, moving other users' talk pages to new addresses. If you keep it up, you will be blocked. DS 16:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

if you are an admin here then for your information .....i have already talked in lenght about this issue to your fellow adminstrator MER-C and he has understood my position you can get in touch with him on this issue or see the discussion on his talkpage . for me this issue is closed , until further notice from your side Thankyou Hussain 21:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Your admin friend would have to bypass policy to let you do what you did. It is regarded as vandalism to both blank and move user talk pages. You have been warned. Ansell 23:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Ansell have you even read the discussion on Mer-c 's talk page before comming here and calling him my friend

Hussain 09:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ansell I am sorry about what happened to you It wasnt my intention if you can have a read at Mer-C 's talk page then you can find out what actually happened . Hussain 09:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I am now assuming good faith that your blanking and movements of my page were an accident. I misunderstood your statement about taking things to an admin. I am sure this has taught you a bit about how wikipedia works though, and that people are willing to negotiate even when at first sight something looks very bad. Ansell 09:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk page

Hi, edits like this [1] should be left on User talk pages, not user pages. I moved it for you. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 09:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for

smoothing it out Samir actually wikipedia and its tools and traditions are quite new to me but i feel that i will adjust myself to it with the passage of time

Hussain 10:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your barnstar

You appear to have added a barnstar to your user page, stating it is from User:General Eisenhower. Did he give this to you somewhere else? You'll forgive my inquisitiveness, but he doesn't appear to have made an edit at the time quoted in that barnstar, or for about three weeks before. It just seems a little odd, that's all. Could you set my mind at ease as to what happened here? --Cherry blossom tree 10:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


I had to move my original user page onto this one

but was forced to copy paste all my user page(barn star and some other sections) in the end ,due to wikipedia's server being down

BTW nice observation Cherry Holmes  :D

Hussain 21:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. I don't entirely follow the sequence of events, but it doesn't matter. Thanks for satisfying my curiosity. --Cherry blossom tree 22:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks Hussain

Hey Hussain, thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It finished with an amazing final tally of 160/4/1. I really appreciate your support. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sarah Would you still have thanked me had I opposed your selection to RFA Hussain 16:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Mariyah-moten-bikini.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mariyah-moten-bikini.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Orphan I think I have made a specific mention to the copyright of the image( see its description) the owners say that they dont have any problem with the image to be used any where if proper credit is given to them Hussain 12:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Area of Pakistan

A couple of days ago, you edited the Pakistan article and changed the area figure from "880,254 square kilometres (339,867 sq mi)" to "905,478 square kilometres(349,607 sq mi)" without giving any source for this change of 25,000 square kilometres. I have changed the figures back. Could you provide a source please? 82.3.86.251 14:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


i mentioned the reason while making the edit please look into the 'history ' page of the aricle Pakistan. Just for repitition of that reason I added 25000(approx.) sq km of Pakistan's maritime area to its land area of around 880,000 sq km .

the source of Pakistan's sea water territory could be found in CIA's world fact book ( you can get the exact URL from the Notes section of the article) Hussain 18:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a source but, which edition of the CIA Factbook are you looking at when you obtain this figure of 905,478 km². The online edition found at [2] gives the following information:
Area:
total: 803,940 sq km
land: 778,720 sq km
water: 25,220 sq km
Allowing for the inclusion of Northern Areas and Azad Kashmir (72,520 km² and 11,639 km² respectively according to the Statoids page ([3]) this gives a total figure of 888,099 km² including the 25,220 km² of water. This still leaves some 17,000 km² extra in your figure of 905,478 km². Please also note that the water area is defined by the Factbook as "the sum of all water surfaces delimited by international boundaries and/or coastlines, including inland water bodies (lakes, reservoirs, rivers)". 82.27.247.204 17:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


The stats on CIA fact book are exclusive of both Fata and Azadkashmnir/northern areas I asked you to look into the fact book to ascertain the total water territory of Pakistan ---- the areas of FATA, FANA, and AJK are officially not included in the total land area of Pakistan thats why CIA has not included it on its data base on Pakistan. However, since those areas are directly under Pakistan's control so they should be included in total area of the country

Punjab= 205,344 km
Sindh= 140,914 km
NWFP= 74,521 km
Balochistan= 347,190 km
FATA= 27,220 km
Azad Kashmir= 13,297 km
Northern Areas= 72,496 km
Water= 25,220 km


Total = 906,202 sq km (the figures are from wikipedia them selves) Hussain 08:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You are clearly operating under some misconceptions. Since when has FATA not been an official part of Pakistan? In the Government section of the Factbook page on Pakistan, FATA is quite clearly included in official administrative divisions. Secondly all the figures you quote for the various provinces and territories are inclusive of water area. Look at the CIA figures again carefully and click on the little book icon next to Area and you will see the definition they have used for water area. On a final note, please don't ever defend statistics by claiming they are from Wikipedia. The whole point is that you should be using accessible and reliable sources of information when you quote figures. As an example, look at the Population Census Organization of Pakistan which provides official figures on its website --> . Those figures include FATA and come to 796,096 km² without any mention of water areas. Now which figures would you assume are correct? The CIA figures, the official Government figures or you're own calculations? 82.14.81.102 02:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/u/s/User_talk%7EHussainAbbas_bbe9.html"