Talk:History of Balochistan

This article needs a major clean up

Hardly any proof and tons of POV. Looks like someone wrote the whole thing without using any sources to back it up. I'm going to delete the bad bits that don't make sense and lack citations. Akmal94 (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of Balochistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141216144543/http://www.jamestown.org/programs/tm/single/?tx_ttnews to http://www.jamestown.org/programs/tm/single/?tx_ttnews
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150614012814/http://balochistanarchives.gob.pk/ to http://balochistanarchives.gob.pk/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051123090201/http://www.bdd.sdnpk.org/map%20of%20balochistan.html to http://www.bdd.sdnpk.org/map%20of%20balochistan.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211140816/http://home.comcast.net/~pankajtandon/galleries-parata-rajas.html to http://home.comcast.net/~pankajtandon/galleries-parata-rajas.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem?

Moved from Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2018 May 10

 – Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• History of Balochistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Copyright violation started from this diff and it was removed recently with this diff. I am seeing thousands of words were copy pasted from books in form of "quotes" in references that are actually supposed to be short. Capitals00 (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Same copyrights violating editor has now restored the copyright violation and provided a misleading edit summary.[1] Given he has been topic banned from uploading files for his copyright violations[2], I would urge admin to block him for his continued copyright violations. Capitals00 (talk) 06:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• This is not the blatant case of copyright violations. Kautilya3 was kind enough to explain the concern in their edit summary. Urging for a straightway block is likely due to bad blood between them.  samee  converse  09:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• This is a blatant case of violation of copyrights involving over thousands of words. NadirAli was already warned for his copyright violations, to which he replied and still he restored the copyright violation. Given his history, it should result in another indefinite block, just like it happens with many others. Why NadirAli couldn't defend himself here? Looks like he told you to come here and misrepresent the entire issue for him. Capitals00 (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with Samee. Looks like a retaliatory request because of this. I could not find any copyright violations. These are just quotes inside the citations. They are not any more of a copyright violation than this. This is an article related to a content dispute between these users on Talk:Princely state, so the frustration from there is spilling over. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 09:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Making up nonsense would result in sanctions against you. You know that NadirAli has WP:CIR issues, just like you do, and they will have to be dealt with as appropriate. 1947 Poonch rebellion is not a copyright violation about which you have been told before[3] and your another stale buddy (KA$HMIR) was blocked for making same false claims.[4] It is just interesting to see how two accounts here are engaging in disruption by defending copyright violations from a multiple times indeffed blocked editor. You both have just confirmed it that the issue is serious and a block for copyright violations is warranted. Capitals00 (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Read WP:CIVIL, WP:IDHT, WP:PERSONALATTACK and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Also keep WP:AE in mind. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hope you are ready for WP:BOOMERANG. You can keep the wikilawyering nonsense with yourself because it is not going to turn deliberate copyright violation into non-violation. Next time don't participate in a discussion about evident violation of copyrights by a long term copyright violator. Given your own lack of understanding about copyrights,[5] you should definitely avoid this area. Capitals00 (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• I do not see any copyright violations in the diffs provided. I only see quotes in the citations and those in no way can be qualified as copyvio. According to my understanding, that is an allowed practice and I have seen many editors do the same. I also see User:Capitals00 is making personal attacks on other editors specially on NadirAli and JosephusOfJerusalem and request admins to stop them from doing so, pinging @Bbb23:, (not sure if this is your area but see if you can stop them from making personal attacks). I believe WP:BOOMERANG is in order as well here for Capitals00 if this report is found to be misleading as described by me above. NadirAli have also asked Kautilya3 for evidence of copyvio but they have provided none and I am pretty sure if evidence was provided, NadirAli would have refrained from doing the same. If quotes inside citations are considered copyvios then following edits by Kautilya3 should be considered a copyvio as well, [6], [7] and [8]. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Your participation has been least helpful here. You don't have to tell you don't see "any copyright violations" if you can't restore the copyright violation yourself. Like I have already said, the participation from editors who generally help NadiAli push his POV, while having no earlier edits on this entire namespace (Wikipedia:Copyright problems) before, clearly confirms that there is a serious issue that needs to be solved and solution is to block NadirAli for his copyright violations since he has proven zillions of times that he does not understand what is a WP:COPYVIO. Defending copyright violation is a sanctionable offense. You seem to be repeating what JosephusOfJerusalem and if you really have problems with other articles then open a request about them. I believe though that you have no issue with them since your actual motive is to defend NadirAli, no matter what you have to say. Capitals00 (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• I do not consider quotes in the citation a copyvio, that is the purpose of that parameter so other editors know that content is not being faked. I just used Kautila3’s edits as an example and have no intention to report them as I do not think they were violating copyrights and neither do I think was NadirAli. I have seen many editors do that. I am also an ardent observer that Diannaa is always on alert for copyrights violations and if quotes in citations were a violation, not many editors would have been doing that. You also need to be less suspicious of others intentions, I was exploring contribs of some users regarding another issue and was lead to this from there. I decided to comment because I found your report egregious. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Doesn't even matter what you consider as copyvio, and especially when you have yourself no firm opinion on this issue you should just avoid this matter and "exploring contribs" is also unconvincing given your above comments. People have access to books or they can ask for it. Quotes are often used by people for pushing a particular POV and such is the case here. Capitals00 (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• I do not think it is a violation but if we find out today that it is then I do not think it was done intentionally as many editors learn from other editors and it's quite possible that NadirAli might have learned from Kautilya3 to include quotes in citations to avoid any ambiguity. I would not include quotes in the citations myself if I do not think those are necessary to avoid ambiguity or any future content dispute as you might know it involves a lot of manual effort to type that up, you cannot directly copy paste content from Google Books, it being in an image form. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• You don't have to depend on what you "think", unless you have a firm opinion. You can wait for the outcome without even replying and derailing this page. It also doesn't matter whether it was done with intent or not because that's something we would never know and certainly the violation involves a long term copyright violator. He restored same copyright violation by providing misleading edit summary which shows the copyright violation was deliberate. Capitals00 (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• He might have violated copyrights previously of which I am not privy to but the editor has been changed now and we cannot use previous violations as an excuse to enhance the effect or the consequence of this report which is based on quotes inside citations considered appropriate by a lot of editors including the one I used as an example above. So, if NadirAli has been doing wrong then a lot of editors will have to change how they format their cites. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

To editor Capitals00:, you obviously never notified me. I just discovered this report. Did you do that deliberately so you could get me sanctioned without defending myself? Or did you do it to make it look like I sent these other users who I've hardly interacted with appear like my "meat puppets". Previously, you accused me of edit warring against Faizan (who violated the 3RR) but later accused me of being his "meatpuppet". Your deception should not go unnoticed. You also bring up my previous copyright violations in every dispute or report. Obvious grave-dancing on an opponent--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

How did you discovered this report? You don't have to be notified because you are defenseless with your repeated copyright violation and there can be no valid cause for you to violate copyrights, at least not something that would benefit Wikipedia. Who is saying that you edit warred Faizan or you are his meatpuppet? Are you out of your mind or just making up to distract from your long term copyright violations by making up fairy tales? It is necessary to present a record of your copyright violations since it is repeatedly occurring. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

NadirAli must have discovered it, the way you and everyone else did! These reports are getting hilarious day by day, trying everything possible under the sun to get content dispute opponents blocked! :) Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

NadirAli must be the first person to have discovered it. These lousy attempts of yours to rescue disruptive editors are becoming hilarious everyday, I also agree that NadirAli is trying everything "possible under the sun" to get himself blocked. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not trying to rescue anyone, I just highlighted the lacunas in the report. You folks should stop filing farce reports so no one can find holes in them because if I find a hole in them, I am going to go right for it. You and the OP should better concentrate on building encyclopedia. These repeated filings come under WP:NOTHERE. Such repeated filings in different areas of the project waste the time of the admins, I am sure they have better things to do than watch over these disruptive filings. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

You are trying too hard to save NadirAli from copyright violations and rejecting clear violation. When you are trying to defend copyright violation you already become a case of WP:NOTHERE. In place of whinning over these reports you should rather encourage others to report more to rid of copyright violations and the disruptive editors engaging in such violation. By removing copyrights you save Wikipedia from disruption and legal trouble. Seems like you don't even know what is a copyright given your CIR issues. NadirAli needs to be blocked for his disruptive violation of copyrights. Stop wishing that editors should allow you and NadirAli disrupt as much as you want. Capitals00 (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.academia.edu/13372388/Prelude_to_the_Accession_of_the_Kalat_State_to_Pakistan_in_1948_An_Appraisal. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)