Talk:Taha Malik

Article quality

I removed large quantities of WP:PUFFERY, unsourced claims, poor sources, unencyclopedic language, etc, and justified it all in my edit summaries. I then moved it back to draft space so that it could be worked on in terms of finding multiple independent reliable sources with sustained coverage of the subject. That's what this article needed in order to be acceptable in article space. Since then Phipperz has been re-adding all that I removed. @Phipperz: Instead of converting the article into one of poor quality again, if you instead focus on finding suitable sources then it may have a chance of being publishable. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Lopifalko. Yes, but please don't change syntax or sentence structures because that rendered a couple sentences grammatically awkward. I'll work on it and fix things. Also what you refer to as "Puffery" are verifiable facts--however, some stuff might have been unnecessary and I will take care of that; it's subjective. Thanks for your input and kind words. - Phipperz

@Phipperz: Here are examples of the WP:PUFFERY that I removed: "Known for his cutting edge productions", "built an impressive career", "Being an innovative and sought-after producer", "Academy and Emmy award winning", and "created the year's most talked about and controversial songs in the Pakistani film industry". These "facts" were not verified by the sources. Please read WP:PUFFERY to see the kind of language that is not allowed in Wikipedia. An encyclopedia does not do "subjective", only what is verified by independent reliable sources. -Lopifalko (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, @lopifalko, but you are very rude and on a power trip. I kept your edits--and am correcting whatever is legitimately against policy. But you are not being only helpful and guiding contributors. I can see all your edits and recommendations in the history page. Thanks, anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phipperz (talk • contribs) 14:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I converted this article from a puff piece into something that would have been acceptable as an article, were you able to find some independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. I moved it to draft space so it wasn't at risk of being deleted whilst those sources were found. Someone else is only going to come along and remove the puffery that you're adding back into it. Wikipedia articles need to be objective and written in a formal tone. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I have responded to your valid and invalid edits in the history. Please see history for clarity. I have every intention to make legitimate contributions to Wikipedia and follow all the rules. But you cannot bully me. I appreciate your efforts when they are reasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phipperz (talk • contribs) 15:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

From my perspective, I am not bullying you, and I am sorry you feel this is bullying. Rather, in patrolling the new pages feed I am assessing this new biography of a living person and editing it in respect of Wikipedia polices on biographies of living persons, which are quite strict. I am only doing the same as any other editor would do in this position. All facts have to be verified to independent reliable sources. This is all in pursuit of the highest quality article. -Lopifalko (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Let's keep it civil and productive then. I'm sorry you feel that I'm not serious. You know my intentions now. When you do petty things like take out "entrepreneur" from occupation, after I gave a justification for a new source (galaxylollywood) and undid your edit, it suggests bullying. I also gave a perfectly valid justification for your "entrepreneur" edit undo--it's in the history. I have also since added two more quality sources. Anyway, life is short, my friend. Let's help each other be good Wiki citizens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phipperz (talk • contribs) 16:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Galaxylollywood.com a reliable source?

Where I removed the info sourced to galaxylollywood.com with the edit summary of "Remove this as galaxylollywood.com is unlikely to be a independent source", I meant to instead say "reliable source" not "independent source". You will see I linked to the page on reliable sources. I still think it seems unlikely, though not out of the question, that galaxylollywood.com is a reliable source in Wikipedia's terms. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I have responded to this. They are reliable--until you prove it objectively. Your expertise is in Photography--not in music or Pakistani film industry and its reporting agencies. The Paris Review or New Yorker wont be reviewing Pakistani films (generally). Thanks for your input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phipperz (talk • contribs) 15:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I have also added other independent and reliable sources which corroborate this article.

Entrepreneur?

@Phipperz: I removed "entrepreneur" from the infobox because if he is an entrepreneur then there needs to be a source that backs that up. You reverted this, saying "the entrepreneur is accurate as he runs registered studio and production company which works with major multinationals, film studios, production houses, etc. Dictionary definition: "a person who sets up a business or businesses, taking on financial risks in the hope of profit." This is your synthesis, assuming that one thing thus implies another. If the infobox says that "entrepreneur" is a major facet of his life, then there needs to be a source mentioning "entrepreneur" specifically. -Lopifalko (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

It is a major facet. He is not signed by any labels or companies. He runs his own business. Again, it's self-evident in the kind of work he does (not as an employee). It does not require a news article on him running a business and taking risks--especially in a career/field so ubiquitously known as entrepreneurial. [This is not to say he isn't entrepreneurial in other ventures and fields (non media/film/music related); I don't claim knowledge of those ventures or report them in this article.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phipperz (talk • contribs) 16:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

DOB and other stuff

Most of the content here is completely unsourced, particularly the personal details. This should not be reinstated until the following happens: reliable sources are provided and consensus is reached for it's inclusion, as most of it was puffery. Praxidicae (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

What kind of source would be sufficient? I read it on a personal page. Also some of of the stuff is public records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phipperz (talk • contribs) 17:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

What is this "public record" you speak of? Is it published in a reliable source? If not, it can't be in the article. Praxidicae (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

And this guy is almost certainly notable but you're not doing him any favors by puffing up this article. Praxidicae (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, I will do more research on this, and also let someone else provide details. Thank you for your recommendations! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phipperz (talk • contribs) 17:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• TahaMalik in the Studio.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)