User talk:Sahara4u
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re: Nawaz SharifOh sorry for not reading that earlier. Usually I don't read talk pages :P Jackninja5 (talk) 06:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC) PM SharifThe stuff might be mentioned below. But so is the work on Syed Sajjad Ali Shah. But just because it is mentioned below does not mean you delete from the top. You have removed the references. No para, top or in a section can be left unreferenced. Small repetition is not a bad thing. The name Nawaz Sharif or Sharif is mentioned hundreds of times in the article. Also, it is worth mentioning in the summary, what the observers think. A quick sentence and three to four references are not a big deal. The stuff being covered below does not justify removing references and a one-liner on FAFEN. Removing references, as you have done, by reverting my edit is inaccurate. (Wiki id2(talk) 19:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)) "Unable to prove the allegations""ECP member is unable to prove the allegations" That is you're own intepretation. You are in no position as there is no reference as to whether the allegations are true or false. Supporters can argue that he as a witness to the process is credible. A witness of course has legal value. He doesn't need to bring thumprints or a contraption but himself. What he observed is enough. While critics argue through denial. Which you have mentioned. Either need references. And "unable to prove the allegations" is an interpretation you are making, not a fact. It belongs on a political forum, not on wikipedia. (Wiki id2(talk) 19:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC))
"WP: Vandalism" ?!?I am willing to take this case to the higher ups. I have added six references!! Six references from a variety of Pakistani news sources. And it is one line saying that "this is what the election comnission thinks [1][2][3][4][5][6]. I have not committed any act of vandalism or bias etc. All six refrences are from credible pakistani news source. Express, ARY, Dunya News and Samaa TV. Who are you to remove them? And revert to an outdated edit when things are moving at a fast pace? Your revert is weak!! It leaves the paragraph with no references at all! That is in violation of wikipedia convention regarding references! You have one whole paragraph and not a single refrence. How do we not know that this is a story you have made up?! Listing wikipedia policies and accussing me of violating them does not justify your position. You cannot remove a content regarding news by the election comission which has been refercenced six times by me! It is completely invalid of you to do so and is in violation of wikipedia policy. Not only that, but then you accuse me of "Vandalism". I haven't written "Nawaz sharif is sh** " now have I?! How can you possibly accuse me of vandalism. All I have said is what the election comission and FAFEN think. The accusations you tried to blow up in my face are all lies. If you feel like this, contact a senior administrator. The burden of proof lies on you. You have made the accusations. And you are removing a well-referenced paragraph for an unreferenced one. It is completely invalid of you to do so. Not only that, but I provide in the description, details of the referenes. I remove the depth on FAFEN for the main section and leave it for the subsection. I only mention FAFEN by name and the ECP. Not the 61 seats etc. Just the one liner on what FAFEN and the ECP thinks. PLUS SIX REFERENCES! You cannot remove that with amateur wikipedia junk. It doesn't have a single reference in you're current form! I have tried my best to resolve this matter between us. I will revert it to my edit. Because it has references, and six of them. Which are uptodate and not from a known government propaganda outlet such as state TV. Take this case to the higher ups in wikipedia. Prove to them that I'm committing "Vandalism?!" surely, that's is defined as removing references relevant to Nawaz Sharif. (Wiki id2(talk) 14:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)) "A place to discuss rigging"The article is a place to discuss Nawaz Sharif. Nawaz Sharif has to face a huge scandal regarding rigging allegations for last years elections. Ergo, discussing rigging relevant to Mr Sharif, is not in violation of WP rules regarding relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki id2 (talk • contribs) "Personal attack"I'm not launching a personal attack. On my talk page you said have a look at these policies etc. before editing wikipedia. Including vandalism. This was under the title Nawaz Sharif. That implies that I'm not following these policies on Nawaz Sharif page. Therefore, I denied such was true. And then you accuse me of launching an attack? And then again effectively charge me with vandalism? I'm defending myself from earlier charges that you are evidently backtracking on. On my talk page. Addressed directly to me under Nawaz Sharif you say look at these policies WP: Vandalism. WP:xyz before you edit wikipedia. The implication is that I'm violating them. My defence does not constitute a personal attack on you. Nevertheless, there are references in the summary. You have not deleted them. If mine are there, along with one extra line, what is the harm? And it's a one-liner. Regarding indepedendent observers. One-liners exist as summaries. (Wiki id2(talk) 17:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)) Summary/ section belowIn the summary. In total, once my part is added it is only 2 lines including the references. That is not the addition of a major chunk of detail. And even after the addition of my lines, the Sharif paragraph is relatively smaller than the other ones. And is a smaller paragraph than other similar articles on wikipedia see Benazir Bhutto, Hosni Mubarak and Nelson Mandela, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln (where the final line doesn't talk about him but what others think of him) - I think, that you said at some point that it wasn't personal enough to be related to Sharif. And critically, the last para on the Sharif article summary, with my addition is still smaller than the one on Obama's. I'm showing that what I'm doing is not in violation of wikipedia norms. As it has been suggested to me that I have ignored the policies. It is evident I have not. Also in the policies you listed (or as I say charged me with violating) by suggesting that as I haven't read them I'm not following it on the Nawaz Sharif page. Not one mentions the length of the final paragraph. And the precedents, especially the Obama one shows that what I'm doing still conforms to standard literary practice. Regards, (Wiki id2(talk) 18:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)) RE: WP:NPOVRegarding WP:NPOV I think that surely by not mentioning the election observers and the election commission. The neutrality is even more compromised because there are views only from those two sides. And the election comission, observers plus references makes a line and a half. So I consider it to be a job well done in terms of brevity. (Wiki id2(talk) 18:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC))
WikiCup 2014 September newsletterIn one month's time, we will know our WikiCup 2014 champion. Newcomer Signups for the 2015 WikiCup are open. All Wikipedians, new and experienced, are warmly invited to sign up for the competition. Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may also like to sign up for the GA Cup, a new WikiCup-inspired competition which revolves around completing good article reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC) Editing Nawaz SharifI might misconstrue what you mean by saying this. But my intent isn't to scare you from editing the Sharif article. I do genuinely believe, that our discussion, at times heated has resulted in a compromise between our positions. Yours for brevity, and mine for at least some level of detail has resulted in a compromise which I think looks good on the article. Regards,
The Signpost: 01 October 2014
This week's article for improvement (week 41, 2014)
October 2014
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC) DYK for 2002 ICC Champions Trophy Final
The Signpost: 08 October 2014
This week's article for improvement (week 42, 2014)
Hi, could you please comment at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket centuries at the Bellerive Oval/archive1 when you get some free time? Regards, — NickGibson3900 Talk 06:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC) The Signpost: 15 October 2014
This week's article for improvement (week 43, 2014)
The Signpost: 22 October 2014
References for Maryam Nawaz PhD claimsPlease add more references for Maryam Nawaz PhD claim as it has been refuted in electronic media. I could not find any references except one news item you have added. If not, please remove PhD part. Without enough authentic sources, it remains a claim. Please also remove Cambridge from alma mater or provide sources. Cheers! --yh (talk) 12:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
|
