Talk:Model Town Humak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Pakistan  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 


Model Town Humak and Humak[edit]

Model Town Humak is a town and should not be confused with Humak .--Mike robert (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:advert[edit]

Resolved

Hi dear wikipedian ! You tagged it (Model Town Humak) as an advertisement .But describing the location as it is doesn't mean that someone wanna advertise it.However if you mean that this article is not neutral then I'm with you. You can help me in that way.Anyhow thanks for your care.Now what about the tag ? :-)Mike robert, —Preceding comment was added at 17:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

o.k.I'm going to do some changes,then comment about it.Mike robert —Preceding comment was added at 17:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw your edits, but it's not just the peacock words you erased that made it an advertisement. The article opens "defining" it as "an amalgamation of rural and urban life." It's the same as if I opened the McDonald's article with "McDonads is your perfect alternative for your meal where our people are kind and the food is always just right for you." You can't say something is a "perfect alternative", just like you can't say something is "an amalgamation of rural and urban life" without becoming an advertisement. Such things simply do not exist. You could quote someone saying that, or say that the idea behind the design was to represent "an amalgamation of rural an urban life" (or to create a "perfect alternative" for that matter), but not actually define something as such.
The history section (not so much now that you've edited, though) but before sounded a lot like a "before and after" type of advertisement, where the "before" is always the fat picture described as ugly and undesirable, and the "after" is always the slim one described as beutiful and perfect. Then there's the issue of describing the sectors, which sound a lot like a tour bus guide. The last bit is OK, though.
I'll take a hand on the intro, but I'm not going to promise anything for the rest of the article since I've really got other things to do.
--Once in a Blue Moon (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Here are my edits. If you want to tell me anything about them, do so on my talk page. I'm copying this discussion over from your talk page to the article's talk page for other people's reference, too.
--Once in a Blue Moon (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
OK man ! Thanks for your time.You did a great job. The 'amalgamation' statement that you tried to be less advertising in a sense should be removed.Because the meaning of the statement has entirely changed which is not relevant with the location.I'm resolving this matter in a very simple way.You said this article's history was representing ugly picture , so ugly things should not be the part of wikipedia.It has been removed."A tour bus guide" is no more there.If rest is OK as far as my edit is concerned then it's fine.Cheers,.Mike robert 20:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. Thanks for the compliment and your attempt to "resolve the matter", but the idea was not to delete them entirely. Instead, the wording had to be changed so that it didn't seem like the article was there to praise the beauty of the town, rather than informing about it. I've fixed it. You'll notice the history part was made into one sentence in the introduction. The article was not "ugly" in itself (nor does Wikipedia have any policy against ugliness), it just had inapropriate wording for an encyclopedia.
--Once in a Blue Moon (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, today i got some time out of my busy life and reviewed this article.You did the right thing.Perhaps ,unintentionally ,i wrote that in an essay style.That was really a mistake.Thanks for the correction.--Mike robert (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)