Talk:Fateh Mohammad Malik

Speedy deletion

Irredeemable article. Purported to be about Malik, but mostly about Shahid. If any of these two has any notability, article should be recreated with appropriate title and unambiguous text. Presently seems COATRACK|coatrack for Shahid. --Crusio (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

See also other articles created by User:Istaara (such as Lamhon Ka Lams (Nasmain) and Mitti Aadam Khati Hai, for example)--Crusio (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Rewritten

I rewrote the article to be about the ostensible subject, as the references do see to support his notability, in spite of the book about him being by an author whose own notability can not be proven. I replaced the prod with a notability tag--I am not sure wheether there is enough to stand up under AfD, but there might be, based upon the text of the newspaper quotation. DGG (talk) 10:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Your reversion

• You do not want to apply the policies and guidelines, your edits fall under I do not like it and owning the article, two editors are not agreed with you, but you remain the reverting the both editors without explaining. Do not display as a fan of the subject, and adopt the neutral point of view and avoid non-encyclopedic terms and language. You are reverted; please discuss here if you have still concerns rather reverting again and again.Justice007 (talk) 10:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• You calling me fan of the subject does not make me fan of the subject. I stumbled upon this article after reading a news story about him. The article was in a bad shape and a lot of unreferenced content. I worked on this article with the intent to improve it but somehow you do not let anybody to work on an article where you have worked before or come to work and you try to impose your stereotypical ideas and view of Wikipedia's policies. This is the fourth article you are starting an edit war with me. You have done this on Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Muhammad Iqbal and now this. Every time we end up at talk page and my point of view ends up prevailing on yours. You do not have an understanding of English language but you blame others that they don't. Example here. Please give other editors some space to work and improve the encyclopedia. Here again on this article you are removing properly sourced and referenced encyclopedic content. Your summary lines are insulting and bossy to other editors. You need to work on toning them down a bit because nobody is boss here. Every editor has an equal right to work on Wikipedia. I will touch upon every edit item which you reverted and try to give my reasoning for inclusion and please don't call me fan of the subject again and again because i am not:

1. Notable work: All of the notable work which you are removing is properly referenced and there is no policy barring how much should be added. That is the proper place for notable work and it should go there.
2. Ethnicity: His ethnicity is Punjabi and he was born in Punjab, see Rabindranath Tagore for an example.
3. Chakwal District: Not sure what is your problem linking Chakwal District
4. On Iqbal as key influence, my text is better than yours and is properly referenced.
5. Five-volume book on Urdu is the work of National Language Authority but was done under his leadership, it's not his work solely so National Language Authority needs to be mentioned there.
6. He is the chairman of National Language Authority and is sourced, not sure what is your objection for including that. We will not do justice to the subject if we do not mention one of his primary career assignments.
7. He was sacked by Zardari under pressure from Saudi government, what's wrong in mentioning that? And what's wrong calling Saudi Arabia's practices uncivilized when the subject did call them uncivilized?
8. You keep tagging a referenced piece of text with without telling what clarification you need on that upon me asking you again and again in summary lines.

As far as the policies you cited, i think the same thing that your edits fall under I do not like it or maybe WP:I don't like the editor because this is the fourth article you are starting an edit war with me on for just petty issues like "this is a featured article, we should not make changes without discussing them first." Sheriff (report) 13:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Well-sourced content does not mean one can display Due. I appreciate if the edits are constructive, and that improve and expand the article. I perform the efforts to maintain the grammar towards verb form, subject-verb agreement, preposition use, the determiner use, punctuations, complex and compound sentence punctuations,

wordiness, spelling, misspelled words, enhancement, and word choice. I am not sure that you are talking about the English language. I do not spoil the pearls if there is nothing in return. I am not the owner of the project, but I am here to maintain the policies and guidelines, and standards that I experienced. We do not follow the examples; we apply only the policies. Over-link means, if you link any Wiki article to any term, for example, Karachi, Pakistan, does not need to link Pakistan because Karachi already displays the link of Pakistan. The lead section is for the key summary of the body, you can add the full content citing the reliable sources in the body sections avoiding the statement of the subject, and blaming that have not authentic sources, and also keep in mind the way of language; Wikipedia is not a newspaper nor the website. Template clarification needed means you should mention the name of the university in that the subject served.

Regarding Iqbal, the terms influenced and influences, you misunderstand that. It is clear that Iqbal was influenced by many figures, but it is different thing that other authors are influenced by Iqbal, it means the author, who adopt the way, and thoughts as Iqbal's philosophy, not just because they wrote the book on Iqbal, it does not endorse the term as you are mentioning the names. In India and Pakistan, much more notable authors are, who wrote about Iqbal, even the writers of foreign languages that you can see in the references section, we cannot degrade anyone; everyone claims to be influenced by Iqbal while they are not even the writer, not the poet. It is not the appropriate practice to display that. I hope this helps, and you understand. I suggest you, revert your reversion to avoid unneeded edit warring.Justice007 (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The disagreement is only between yourself and myself, there is no other editor involved so you cannot call my point of view minority point view that is what is Due about. Other than that you did not answer any of my points. I will give you enough time to reply me point by point before reverting further. Please list your reply point by point, your previous reply was vague. Sheriff (report) 19:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)