User talk:TheBirdsShedTears
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello TheBirdShedTears.
I would like you to review Draft:Jaey Price
Request to Create an Article on the Defence Security Force (DSF)
[edit]Would you like to create an article on the Defence Security Force (DSF), formerly known as the Defence Services Guards (DSG)? It is a Corps-level formation within the Pakistan Army, tasked with the protection of defense and other military installations across the country. The DSF is comparable to the Defence Security Corps of the Indian Army. I saw information about this force a few years ago; there were just a few lines about it in this article.
Here is the detailed article [1] and some other coverage of deployment, training appointments etc are: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] [8], [9], [10], [11] Ainty Painty (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm currently working on culture-related articles and, to be honest, I don't know much about the Defence Security Force (DSF). For now, I don't feel confident enough to take on this topic. That said, once I'm done with my current projects, I might consider it, but I can't say for sure. Thanks for your understanding! TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 08:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Whenever you feel ready, feel free to take on the article. No rush at all. Best of luck with your current work, and thanks for letting me know! Ainty Painty (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ainty Painty: After a thorough search on Google, including books, I couldn't uncover much about the size of the Defence Security Force (DSF). Most of the information I found comes from primary sources like hilal.gov.pk, with only passing mentions in secondary sources, which leaves me uncertain about its notability. While primary sources are valuable, the notability of military units is determined by their size and role (in my opinion) and coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. Without more concrete details on the DSF's scale and a broader range of sources, it's tough to say if it meets the criteria for inclusion. Looks like it's still a bit of a mystery! However, if an article is created, it might end up as a start class entry, which would be an injustice to the DSF, given its significance in the historical context of British colonial rule from which it emerged as the Army Department of Constabulary in 1923. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Could you please help find one more source with in-depth coverage similar to this, or a source with about one paragraph about the DSF? TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ainty Painty: After a thorough search on Google, including books, I couldn't uncover much about the size of the Defence Security Force (DSF). Most of the information I found comes from primary sources like hilal.gov.pk, with only passing mentions in secondary sources, which leaves me uncertain about its notability. While primary sources are valuable, the notability of military units is determined by their size and role (in my opinion) and coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. Without more concrete details on the DSF's scale and a broader range of sources, it's tough to say if it meets the criteria for inclusion. Looks like it's still a bit of a mystery! However, if an article is created, it might end up as a start class entry, which would be an injustice to the DSF, given its significance in the historical context of British colonial rule from which it emerged as the Army Department of Constabulary in 1923. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Whenever you feel ready, feel free to take on the article. No rush at all. Best of luck with your current work, and thanks for letting me know! Ainty Painty (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Happy holidays!
[edit]
Hello there, 'tis the season again, believe it or not, the years pass so quickly now! A big thank you for all of your contributions to Wikipedia in 2024! Wishing you a Very happy and productive 2025! ♦ Maliner (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
NPP Reviews
[edit]Hi, TheBirdsShedTears, and thank you for all your help thus far with the 2025 NPP Backlog Drive! Even if only for the first couple of days, being in the top ten reviewers is an incredible feat!
I wanted to reach out because I was double-checking a few of your reviews and noticed IWF International Solidarity Championships, which you had marked as reviewed. At the time of the review, the article had two sources, one of which is primary and doesn't provide significant coverage of the event and the other of which appears to be a dead link. Given this, it would make sense to check if sources are available to establish notability. If so, you should tag the article as needing more sources. I have unmarked the article as reviewed for the moment.
As you continue reviewing for the backlog, make sure to keep the handy dandy flowchart in mind. Thanks again for all your hard work, and let me know if you have any further questions, comments, and/or concerns. Take care, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the heads-up. I believe it might have occurred accidentally. I usually address such articles with the necessary tags. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 04:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sounds good! As another quick question, I noticed you tagged a few pages for notability and marked them as reviewed (e.g., Goonew). Could you clarify your rationale for this? Generally, when there are unresolved notability issues, it's best to hold off on marking the article as reviewed until those concerns are addressed. This ensures that problematic articles don’t slip through without proper vetting. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Significa liberdade: The article has been unreviewed since 5 February 2024. I am currently reviewing older articles, tagging non-notable ones with a notability tag, and marking them as reviewed to help reduce the NPP backlog. I believe leaving them unreviewed does not contribute to reducing the backlog. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your quick response! I completely understand the desire to help clear out older unreviewed articles. That said, marking an article as reviewed while tagging it for notability can create confusion as the "reviewed" status signals that the article meets Wikipedia's minimum notability standards. If the notability of an article is in question, it should remain unreviewed until either the issue is resolved or the article is redirected, merged, or sent to AfD. I understand the backlog can feel daunting, but accurate reviews are critical to maintaining the integrity of the patrol process. Thanks again for your work, and let me know if you have any follow-up questions, comments, and/or concerns. Take care, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Significa liberdade, FWIW I don't entirely agree with this advice. I think it's fine to add {{notability}} and mark as reviewed new articles which are borderline for notability but have a low risk for harm (e.g. topics without promotional potential or contentious material) signed, Rosguill talk 15:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Significa liberdade:, For clarity, I haven't marked BLPs
—particularly thosewith contentious material or potential COI—as reviewed. I've also taken several such articles to AfD and draftified many created within the last 90 days. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC) - @Rosguill:, Thank you! I have marked only non-promotional articles with no potential COI as reviewed, using the notability tag, to help reduce the backlog as much as possible. Also, I perform a WP:BEFORE search before taking action on such articles. I have also added sources to notable article (in my opinion) before reviewing them. Please see Jetullah Qarri. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Significa liberdade:, For clarity, I haven't marked BLPs
- Significa liberdade, FWIW I don't entirely agree with this advice. I think it's fine to add {{notability}} and mark as reviewed new articles which are borderline for notability but have a low risk for harm (e.g. topics without promotional potential or contentious material) signed, Rosguill talk 15:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your quick response! I completely understand the desire to help clear out older unreviewed articles. That said, marking an article as reviewed while tagging it for notability can create confusion as the "reviewed" status signals that the article meets Wikipedia's minimum notability standards. If the notability of an article is in question, it should remain unreviewed until either the issue is resolved or the article is redirected, merged, or sent to AfD. I understand the backlog can feel daunting, but accurate reviews are critical to maintaining the integrity of the patrol process. Thanks again for your work, and let me know if you have any follow-up questions, comments, and/or concerns. Take care, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Significa liberdade: The article has been unreviewed since 5 February 2024. I am currently reviewing older articles, tagging non-notable ones with a notability tag, and marking them as reviewed to help reduce the NPP backlog. I believe leaving them unreviewed does not contribute to reducing the backlog. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sounds good! As another quick question, I noticed you tagged a few pages for notability and marked them as reviewed (e.g., Goonew). Could you clarify your rationale for this? Generally, when there are unresolved notability issues, it's best to hold off on marking the article as reviewed until those concerns are addressed. This ensures that problematic articles don’t slip through without proper vetting. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Its only Presidency of Religious Affairs not Republic of Turkey Presidency of Religious Affairs
[edit]Is it? Do you see the official logo of DIB on wikipedia page?
Look again closely: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Diyanet_%C4%B0%C5%9Fleri_Ba%C5%9Fkanl%C4%B1%C4%9F%C4%B1_yeni_logo.svg
It says "Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Cumhurbaşkanlığı Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı"
And more, Türkiye officially changed its international name:
Now would you revert your changes?
I hope you find this reliable enough and regard them as "reliable sources"
Umarım öyle olur. 178.241.156.97 (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Instead of focusing on the entire text of the logo, which appears a description rather than the actual title, pay attention to the bold text that reads Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı (Presidency of Religious Affairs). For future reference, please visit the official website of DIB. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Really? Let's check diyabet's website: www.diyanet.gov.tr
- It says:
- "T.C. Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı Resmi İnternet Sitesi"
- If you make a mistake it is wise to accept it and move forward. Insisting on a mistake is really....pointless.
- I hope you actually use official and "reliable sources" in the future for future references and claims.
- Have a nice and reliable day with "reliable sources".
- Cheers kanka! 178.246.223.0 (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Read paragraph number 5 here. It reads;
By the Law 5634, published on 29.04.1950, “Diyanet İşleri Reisliği” (Directorate of Religious Affairs) was changed as “Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı” (Presidency of Religious Affairs) the staff of mosques and smaller mosques and people in charge of them that were assigned to the General Directorate of Charitable Foundations, were given to the Presidency of Religious Affairs again.
Read this carefully than making less useful statements. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- now read it carefully:
- https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/21.5.2646.pdf
- RESMÎ YAZIŞMALARDA UYGULANACAK USUL VE ESASLAR HAKKINDA YÖNETMELİK Cumhurbaşkanı Kararının Tarihi : 9/6/2020 Sayısı : 2646 Yayımlandığı Resmî Gazetenin Tarihi : 10/6/2020 Sayısı : 31151
- Başlık MADDE 10- (1) Başlık (antet), belgeyi gönderen idarenin adının belirtildiği bölümdür.
- (2) Başlık, belgenin yazı alanının üst kısmına ortalanarak yazılır. İlk satıra “T.C.” kısaltması, ikinci satıra idarenin adı büyük harflerle, üçüncü satıra birimin adı ilk harfleri büyük diğerleri küçük harflerle ortalanarak yazılır. Ancak bağlı veya ilgili idarelerde ilk satıra “T.C.” kısaltması, ikinci satıra bağlı veya ilgili olunan idarenin adı büyük harflerle, üçüncü satıra idarenin adı ilk harfleri büyük diğerleri küçük harflerle ve dördüncü satıra da birimin adı ilk harfleri büyük diğerleri küçük harflerle ortalanarak yazılabilir (Örnek 2).
- Then take a look at this official document (especially the header the name of the institution) given in the article:
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Religious_Affairs#/media/File%3ANahit_Serbes_Diyanet_%C4%B0%C5%9Fleri_Ba%C5%9Fkanl%C4%B1%C4%9F%C4%B1_Cami_A%C3%A7%C4%B1l%C4%B1%C5%9F_Belgesi.jpg
- What did you write:
- "Read this carefully than making less useful statements."
- Indeed! I have made useful contributions, not claims with "reliable sources"
- Don't forget to revert your changes.
- Have a nice day with "reliable sources"
- Cheers mate! 178.246.223.0 (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Read paragraph number 5 here. It reads;
Request to Create Article on the Defence Complex Islamabad (DCI)
[edit]Hi again, would you also consider developing an article on Defence Complex Islamabad, (DCI) also referred as New GHQ Islamabad, Following the 1971 war and the subsequent war inquiry commission report highlighting the lack of communication and coordination between Pakistan’s three military services, the Zulfikar Ali Bhutto government initiated a series of military reforms in the 1970s. One of the key outcomes was the formation of the Higher Defence Organization (HDO), which introduced major changes in the structure of Pakistan’s armed forces. This included the establishment of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, the creation of the position of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, the establishment of a Joint Staff Headquarters, and the reorganization of the independent Commanders-in-Chief of the Army, Navy, and Air Force into the position of Chiefs of Staff.
As part of these reforms, the Bhutto government also decided to relocate the headquarters of the Pakistan Air Force from Peshawar, Navy from Karachi, and Army from Rawalpindi to Islamabad Capital Territory. The first two phases of the Defence Complex Islamabad (DCI) were successfully completed: the Navy headquarters moved to the E-8 sector, and the Air Force headquarters moved to the E-9 sector.[12],[13],[14]
However, Phase 3 (Sector E-10 & D-11), which entailed the relocation of the Army’s General Headquarters (GHQ), the Joint Staff Headquarters, and the Ministry of Defence Headquarters, faced delays primarily due to the high cost, as well as the economic challenges posed by the national and global financial crises of 2007-2008.
The plan to move the Army GHQ was revived after the 2009 Pakistan Army General Headquarter attack and subsequent security concerns. Since then, significant progress has been made in land acquisition, construction of boundary walls, and other preparatory works for the relocation of the Army’s headquarters, the Joint Staff Headquarters, and the Ministry of Defence Headquarters to the capital.[15],[16],[17],[18],[19] Ainty Painty (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
January 2025 NPP backlog drive – Points award
[edit]
|
The New Page Patroller's Barnstar | |
| This award is given in recognition to TheBirdsShedTears for accumulating at least 100 points during the January 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 16,000+ articles and 14,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 19,791.2 points) completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC) |
9th Auxiliary Squadron
[edit]I am a coordinator for the military history project. I suggest you change the title of the article to include Pakistan's Navy at the front of the title or in parenthesis after the current title. I am concerned that many people will not be able to locate the article as relating to the Pakistan Navy with this general title. For your consideration. Donner60 (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)